March 29 – Palm Sunday

OVERVIEW: This passage is of fundamental importance for Christology, then as now. The comments made upon it were numerous. It is more useful to illustrate the consensus of the Fathers from as many sources as possible rather than to make an arbitrary selection from this abundance. In this passage the arrangement is not chronological but thematic. Here are some of the questions that arise from each verse: Does the passage imply that Christ was ever less than God (2:6a)? What sort of robbery might he have attempted (2:6b)? What did it mean that he emptied himself (2:7a)? Did he take the appearance or the actuality of a slave (2:7b)? Was he human or merely in human likeness (2:7c-d)? What is involved in his humiliation (2:8)? Who is he that has been exalted (2:9a)? What is the name above every name (2:9b-c)?
WHAT THE HYMN AS A WHOLE TELLS US. EPIPHANIUS: You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity. . . . He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary’s trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man. ANCORATUS 44. 1

2:6a Being in the Form of God
PROOF OF HIS FULL DIVINITY AS THE FORM OF GOD. NOVATIAN: If Christ were only a man, he would have been said to have been “in the image of God,” not “in the form of God.” We know that humanity was made in the image, not the form, of God. ON THE TRINITY 22.2. 2

COUNTERING THE NEO-ARIANS. GREGORY OF NYSSA: He did not say “having a nature like that of God,” as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says “being in the very form of God.” All that is the Father’s is in the Son. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 3

CHRIST IS THE FORM OF GOD. MARIUS VICTORINUS: God is the very principle of life. God is being itself. God contains life as a principle of life and so also understanding. But life and understanding are in a sense the form and image of what exists. What most truly exists is God. God is being itself, as many agree, and more so that which is above existence. The form of existence is motion, understanding and life. . . . Christ is said to be “the form of God” because Christ is life, consciousness and understanding. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8. 4

THE FORM OF GOD IS HIS ESSENCE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in “the form of a slave,” he took form in the essence of the slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was “in the form of God,” he was indicating the essence along with the form. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.2.147. 5

BEFORE HE EMPTIED HIMSELF. ORIGEN: First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming “the form of a slave” when he “emptied himself.” You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 20.18. 6

BEING GOD HE TOOK THE FORM OF A SLAVE. ATHANASIUS: What clearer and more decisive proof could there be than this? He did not become better from assuming a lower state but rather, “being God, he took the form of a slave.” . . . If [as the Arians think] it was for the sake of this exaltation that the Word came down and that this is written, what need would there be for him to humble himself completely in order to seek what he already had? AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.40. 7

HE WAS NOT SLAVE BEFORE HE WAS LORD. EPIPHANIUS: Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was “in the form of God took the form of a slave”? ANCORATUS 28. 8

SUPPOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE OPPOSITE, THAT THE FORM OF GOD IS NOT THE BEING OF GOD. THEODORET: But if [the Arians] think the “form of God” is not the being of God, let them be asked what they think is the “form of a slave.” . . . If the form of a slave is the being of a slave, then the form of God is God. . . . Furthermore, let us recognize also that the apostle uses the example of Christ as a lesson in humility. . . . If the Son was not equal to the Father but inferior, he did not obey in humility—he merely fulfilled his station. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6. 9

WHETHER HE EXISTED BEFORE MARY. CHRYSOSTOM: How can the wretched [Sabellius] say that Christ’s existence began from Mary? This implies that before this he did not exist. But Paul says that “being the form of God he took the form of a slave.” . . . The form of a slave is truly a slave and nothing less. So too the form of God is truly God and nothing less. Paul did not write that he was in process of coming to be in the form of God; rather “being in the form of God,” hence truly divine. This is as much as to say “I am that I am.” HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 7.2.5-8. 11

THE FORM OF GOD IS NOTHING LESS THAN GOD. AMBROSIASTER: When he dwelt among humans, he appeared as God by his acts and works. “For the form of God” differs in nothing from God. Indeed, the reason for his being called the form and image of God is to make it apparent that he himself, though distinguishable from God the Father, is everything that God is. . . . His works revealed his form. Since his works were not those of a human, he whose work or form was that of God was perceived to be God. For what is “the form of God?” Is it not shown by the evidences given of his divinity—by his raising of the dead, his restoration of hearing to the deaf, his cleansing of lepers? EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-2.8.5. 12

DISTINGUISHING SON OF MAN AND SON OF GOD. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: [Paul] acknowledged Christ and no other to be the Son of God. The flesh that Christ assumed was called “the form of a slave” and “son of man.” But as to that birth which, unknown to all, was from the Father and before all ages, he was Son of God. ON THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH 1.2. 13

THE TRUE GREATNESS OF CHRIST. LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI: It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate. ON DYING FOR THE SON OF GOD 12. 14

THE NEED TO RECEIVE THE LIKENESS. METHODIUS: Being in the image of God, [humanity] still needed to receive the likeness. The Word, having been sent into the world to perfect this, first of all took on our own form, even though in history it has been stained by many sins, so that we for our part, on whose account he bore it, should be once again capable of partaking in his divine nature. Hence it is now possible for us to receive God’s likeness. Think of a skilled painter painting a likeness of himself on a surface. So we may now imitate the same characteristics that God himself has displayed in his becoming a human being. We hold these characteristics before us as we go in discipleship along the path he set out. His purpose in consenting to put on human flesh when he was God was this: that we, upon seeing the divine image in this tablet, so to speak, might imitate this incomparable artist. SYMPOSIUM 1.4.24. 16

2:6b Equality with God Not Counted a Thing to Be Grasped
EQUAL TO GOD. AUGUSTINE: God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says “who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” ON FAITH AND THE CREED 5. 18

EQUAL, NOT SIMILAR. MARIUS VICTORINUS: What does this mean—“being equal to God”? It means that he [the Son] is of the very same power and substance [as the Father]. . . . It is in this sense therefore that Christ was equal to God. Note that Paul did not say Christ was “similar to God,” for that would imply that Christ possessed some accidental likeness to the substance of God but not that he was substantially equal. . . . Thus Christ is the form of God. The form of God is the substance of God. The form and image of God is the Word. The Word is forever with God. The Word is of one substance with the Father, with whom from the beginning it remains forever the Word. AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.21-22. 22

HE ELECTED HUMILITY. THEODORET: Being God, and God by nature, and having equality with God, he thought this no great thing, as is the way of those who have received some honor beyond their merits, but, hiding his merit, he elected the utmost humility and took the shape of a human being. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-7. 23

WHETHER HUMILITY IS LACK OF POWER. CHRYSOSTOM: When someone who has the power to think great thoughts humbles himself, that one is humble. But when his humility comes from impotence, that is not what you would call humility. . . . It is a humility of a greater sort to refrain from “seizing” power, to be “obedient to death.” HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 7.2.5-8. 24

THE EQUALITY NOT ELICITED BY ROBBERY. MARIUS VICTORINUS: It would be a kind of robbery if two things were not equal by nature but were forced to be made equal or made equal through some accident. It therefore shows great confidence and bespeaks the very nature of divinity when Paul says of Christ that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God yet did not consider this equality something he had to fortify. AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.23. 25

TO GOD BELONGS DEITY BY NATURE. CHRYSOSTOM: Suppose someone commits a robbery and grabs something that does not belong to him. Wouldn’t he be inclined to hold on to it tightly, to grasp it and not lay it aside for fear of losing it? But suppose someone else possesses an estate by nature. He would not have any fear of losing it. He would not then be afraid to descend temporarily from his estate of dignity. He would know that he would suffer no loss, because it belongs to him naturally. . . . We are human beings. We are not divine by nature. We do not possess goodness by nature. But to God divinity belongs by nature. . . . His dominion was not acquired by seizure but was natural. It was not the gift of another but always stable and secure. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 26

HIS EQUALITY SHOWN NOT A ROBBERY BUT A RIGHT. AMBROSIASTER: Knowing that he is “in the form of God,” he committed no theft. . . . Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who “thinks robbery” is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6. 27

THE LOGIC OF THE EQUALITY. EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI: You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son] or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form. . . . This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality, there is no dis-cord. Where there is one equality, neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity. ON THE TRINITY 3.4, 7. 28

THE EQUALITY INDIVISIBLE. AUGUSTINE: Wherein lies the Son’s equality? If you say in greatness, there is no equality of greatness in one who is less eternal. And so with other things. Is he perhaps equal in might but not equal in wisdom? Yet how can there be equality of might in one who is inferior in wisdom? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in might? But how can there be equality of virtue in one who is inferior in power? Instead Scripture declares more simply “he thought it not robbery to be equal.” Therefore every adversary of truth who is at all subject to apostolic authority must admit that the Son is in some one respect at least the equal of God. Let him choose whichever quality he might wish, but from that it will appear that he is equal in all that is attributed to divinity. ON THE TRINITY 6.5. 29

THE EQUALITY AS A PROOF OF HIS ETERNITY. CHRYSOSTOM: Now equality is not predicated of one subject, for that which is equal must be equal to something. Do you see how the existence of two subjects is affirmed, not two mere names without real significance? Do you hear how the Only Begotten existed before the ages? HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 7.2.5-8. 30

EQUALITY AS A PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY. PSEUDO-AUGUSTINE: If therefore he thought it no robbery to assert his equality with God, he demonstrated that he was the true Son of God. No one could be God’s equal without being truly God. QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS 97.2. 31

EQUALITY DISTINGUISHED FROM HUMILITY. FULGENTIUS: While the whole Word came to us when “the Word was made flesh,” the whole remained with the Father in Spirit, equal to the Father, from whom he is eternally begotten yet made less by the gracious assumption of flesh so that he could be visible to us. And by this the Lord from the Lord remained Lord “in the form of God.” In order that he might come to slaves he received “the form of a slave” from his handmaid. ON THE INCARNATION 21. 34

EQUALITY AS SHARED POWER. QUODVULTDEUS: He did not rob, because who he was, he was by nature. Thus the omnipotence of the Father was in the Son and the omnipotence of the Son in the Father. The Father is never without the Son nor the Son without the Father. ON THE CREED 1.3.14-15. 35

THE SON’S REMEMBRANCE OF HIS IDENTITY. NOVATIAN: He never either compared or opposed himself to God the Father. He remembered [throughout his earthly ministry] that he was from the Father. ON THE TRINITY 22.5. 36

THE ECONOMY OF THE INCARNATION. AUGUSTINE: These things are said partly on account of the economy by which the Son assumed humanity . . . partly because the Son owes to the Father his existence and also owes to the Father indeed his equality or parity with the Father. The Father, however, owes to no one his being, whatever he is. ON FAITH AND THE CREED 18. 37

2:7a Christ Emptied Himself
THE EMPTYING THROUGH OBEDIENCE. HILARY OF POITIERS: To assume “the form of a slave,” he “emptied himself” through obedience. He emptied himself, that is, from the “form of God,” which means “equality with God.” ON THE TRINITY 8.45. 38

THE EMPTYING COMMENSURATE WITH OUR NATURE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: And even the word emptied clearly affirms that he was not always as he appeared to us in history. . . . He “emptied himself,” as the apostle says, by contracting the ineffable glory of his Godhead within our small compass. In this way “what he was” remained great and perfect and incomprehensible, but “what he assumed” was commensurate with the measure of our own nature. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 39

THE EMPTYING INVOLVED NO LOSS OF GODHEAD. AUGUSTINE: He is said to have “emptied himself” in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature, through which he was born of the Virgin. CONTRA FAUSTUM 3.6. 40

WHETHER HE HIMSELF CHANGED WHEN HE EMPTIED HIMSELF. AUGUSTINE: He “emptied himself,” not because as eternal Wisdom he underwent change. For as eternal Wisdom he is absolutely changeless. Rather without changing he chose to become known to humanity in such a humble form. ON FAITH AND THE CREED 18. 41

THE EMPTYING CONCEALED HIS DIGNITY. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: By “emptying” the holy Scripture signifies becoming of no account, just as in Corinthians Paul speaks of faith as if it had been made of no account, or emptied of significance, if Christ be not raised. So “our preaching has been made empty” means that it is of no account and futile. . . . Thus the phrase “he emptied himself” means that he did not yet reveal himself. Assuming the form of a slave, he concealed that dignity which was his. So he was deemed by onlookers to be what he seemed. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.2. 43

THE EMPTYING HIDES BUT DOES NOT CURTAIL THE DIVINITY IN HIM. GREGORY OF ELVIRA: We do not believe that he was so emptied that he himself as Spirit became something else. Rather he, having put aside for this time the honor of his majesty, put on a human body. Only by assuming human form could he become the Savior of humanity. Note that when the sun is covered by a cloud its brilliance is suppressed but not darkened. The sun’s light, which is suffused throughout the whole earth, penetrating all with its brilliant splendor, is presently obscured by a small obstruction of cloud but not taken away. So too that man, whom our Lord Jesus Christ put on, being our Savior, which means God and the Son of God, does not lessen but momentarily hides the divinity in him. ON THE FAITH 88-89. 44

THE EMPTYING AS AN EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS GLORY. ORIGEN: The Son, “emptying himself,” of his equality with the Father and showing us a way of knowing him, was made an express image of his substance, so that we who were unable to see the glory of pure light that inhered in the greatness of his divinity might, through that which was made splendor for us, find a way of contemplating the divine light through the sight of that splendor. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.8. 46

THE EMPTYING PASSIVE BUT VOLUNTARY. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He let himself be “emptied.” It was not through any compulsion by the Father. He complied of his own accord with the Father’s good pleasure. DIALOGUES ON THE TRINITY 1. 47

THE EMPTYING UNCOERCED. FAUSTINUS: If he “therefore emptied himself, assuming the form of a slave,” he was not coerced but was of his own accord made the Son of Man, existing as God’s equal in the form of God. Therefore you have the Son expressing in himself the faith proper to humans. ON THE TRINITY 17. 48

THE EMPTYING AS AN ASSUMPTION OF THE BODY. ORIGEN: In “emptying himself,” he became a man and was incarnate while remaining truly God. Having become a man, he remained the God that he was. He assumed a body like our own, differing only in that it was born from the Virgin by the Holy Spirit. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1, PREFACE 4. 49

THE EMPTYING AS AN ASSUMPTION OF FLESH. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: What sort of emptying is this? To assume the flesh, even in the form of a slave, a likeness to ourselves while not being like us in his own nature but superior to the whole creation. Thus he humbled himself, descending by his economy into mortal bounds. ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST. 50

THE EMPTYING AS AN ASSUMPTION OF HUMANITY. MARIUS VICTORINUS: We must understand this “emptying himself” to consist not in any loss or privation of his power but in the fact that he lowered himself to the basest level and condescended to the meanest tasks. By fulfilling these he momentarily emptied himself of his power. Assuming flesh and human form and likeness, he suffered, died and fulfilled all the things that belong to humanity. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8. 51

THE EMPTYING AS A LESSON IN HUMILITY. AMBROSIASTER: Christ, therefore, knowing himself to be “in the form of God,” showed himself equal to God. But in order to teach the law of humility when the Jews were binding him, he not only refrained from resistance but “emptied himself,” that is, withheld his power from taking effect, so that in his humiliation he seemed to be weakened as his power lay idle. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.8.1. 52

THE EMPTYING CONSISTENT WITH TRANSCENDENCE. PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE: Even in this he has what is supernatural and superessential, not only because he underwent no change or confusion in his communion with us, suffering no detriment to his exceeding fullness from his ineffable emptying but because also—the newest of all new things—he was supernatural even while in our natural condition. He was above the realm of essences while being in the realm of essences. He possessed our properties from us in a manner superior to ourselves. ON THE DIVINE NAMES 2.10. 53

THE EMPTYING CONSISTENT WITH OMNIPOTENCE. HILARY OF POITIERS: Remaining “in the form of God,” he “took the form of a slave,” not being changed but “emptying himself” and hiding within himself and being made empty within his own power. He tempered himself to the form of the human state as far as was necessary to ensure that the weakness of the assumed humility would not fail to bear his immeasurable power. He went even so far as to tolerate conjunction with a human body. Just this far did his goodness moderate itself with an appropriate degree of obedience. But in making himself empty and restraining himself within himself, he did nothing detrimental to his own power, since even within this lowliness of his self-emptying he nonetheless used the resources of the evacuated power within him. ON THE TRINITY 12.48. 54

THE EMPTYING NECESSARY FOR FULL HUMANITY. MARIUS VICTORINUS: How could he possibly have taken only human form and not human substance? For he put on the flesh and was in the flesh and suffered in the flesh. This is the mystery and the means of our salvation. . . . What therefore does it mean, “he emptied himself?” That the universal Logos was not universal in his actual being as the logos of the flesh and becoming flesh. Therefore he did not merely pretend to become a man but became a man. AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.22. 55

THE EMPTYING A PROOF OF FULL INCARNATION. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: By this alone let the difference between the divinity and humanity in him be perceived. For Godhead and humanity are not the same in natural quality. Otherwise how has the Word, being God, been “emptied,” having let himself fall among lesser beings such as ourselves? But when we speculate on the mode of incarnation the human mind inevitably sees two things commingled by an inexpressible and unconfused union yet in no way divides the united elements but believes and firmly accepts that there is one from both, who is God, Son, Christ and Lord. LETTER TO ACACIUS 14. 56

THE EMPTYING ENABLES HUMAN NATURE TO ACCOMMODATE GOD’S REVELATION. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The Godhead is emptied so that the human nature may accommodate it. What is human, on the other hand, is made new, becoming divine through mingling with the divine. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.3.67. 57

RECEIVING AS MUCH AS NATURE COULD HOLD. GREGORY OF NYSSA: He “emptied himself,” as the Scripture says, so that as much as nature could hold it might receive. AD THEOPHILUM ADVERSUS APOLLINARISTAS 3. 58

HUMAN NATURE MADE ABLE TO RECEIVE. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: Since he is emptied on our account when he came down (and by emptying I mean as it were the reduction and lessening of his glory), he is for this reason able to be received. ORATION 37.2. 59

THE EMPTYING A RESTORATION OF OUR NATURE BY HIS HUMILITY. EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI: How then did he “empty himself”? When the “form of God accepted the form of a slave,” when he who is preeminently the Lord deigned to take on himself what belongs to a slave. The Word was made flesh by bearing and doing what was beneath him in his indulgence and compassion toward us. All that he possessed by nature is emptied into this his person. Having been made obedient as a man in the true “fashion of humanity,” he has restored to our nature by his own humility and obedience what had perished through disobedience in Adam. ON THE TRINITY 10 (9).57. 60

THE SOVEREIGNTY TEMPORARILY UNDER SUBMISSION. NOVATIAN: The sovereignty of the divine Word temporarily submitted to assume a man and for a season “humbled himself” and abased himself, not exercising his nature through his powers, while he bore the man that he had assumed. He “emptied himself” when he bowed to injuries and slanders, when he heard unspeakable insults and suffered indignities. ON THE TRINITY 22.8-9. 61

2:7b Taking the Form of a Servant
HIS SERVANTHOOD NOT FROM A NATURAL INFERIORITY. CHRYSOSTOM: If it were through a natural inferiority that he undertook to bear “the form of a slave,” this would not be an instance of humility. Yet Paul makes excellent use of this example as an exhortation precisely to humility. ON THE EQUALITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, HOMILY 10. 63

HE ASSUMED WHAT HE WAS NOT. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The one who says that he “took the form of a slave”—and this form is flesh—is saying that, being himself something else according to his divine form, something else in his nature, he assumed the servile form. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 64

THE SLAVERY AS GOD’S INSTRUMENT. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: God did all things through him. Therefore he is also said to have “taken the form of a slave.” It is not only the flesh of the slave that he assumed but the very nature of a slave that he assumed. He became a slave so that he could share human suffering in the flesh. EXCERPTS FROM THEODOTUS 1.19.4-5. 65

TAKING THE FORM OF A SLAVE. AMBROSIASTER: He is said not to have taken the form of God but to have been in the form of God. What he is said to have taken is the form of a slave when he was humbled like a sinner. People become slaves through sin, like Ham the son of Noah, who first received the title of slave through his own actions. His “taking the form of a slave” was not simply his becoming human but his profound identification with sinners, voluntarily “taking the form of a slave.” EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.8.2. 67

YET HIS SLAVERY INVOLVED NO ACTUAL SIN. AUGUSTINE: The Son humbled himself, taking the form of a slave. But meanwhile he remained above any slavery because he had no stain of sin. ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST 33. 68

THE SLAVERY DID NOT INDICATE A DEFECT OF POWER. LEO THE GREAT: He “assumed the form of a slave” without the stain of sin, enhancing the human without diminishing the divine. That emptying by which the invisible One offered himself to be seen and the Creator and Lord of all things elected to be one among mortals was a sovereign act of stooping in majestic pity, not a defect of power. EPISTLE 28 TO FLAVIAN 3. 69

THE SLAVERY OF THE SON ENDS THE SLAVERY OF SIN. AUGUSTINE: The Lord Jesus Christ came in flesh and, having “accepted the form of a slave, became obedient even to death on the cross.” He has no other purpose than that by this dispensation of his most merciful grace he might give life to those who have become, as it were, members of his body. He is their head in order to obtain for them the kingdom of heaven. This he did to save and set free. He redeemed and enlightened those who had formerly been consigned to the death of sin. They had been languishing in slavery, captivity and darkness under the power of the devil, the prince of sinners. ON WHAT IS DUE TO SINNERS 1.39. 70

THE SLAVERY EXEMPLIFIES HUMILITY. AMBROSIASTER: “Taking the form of a slave.” He indeed was taken captive, bound and driven with blows. His obedience to the Father took him even as far as the cross. Yet throughout he knew himself to be the Father’s Son, equal in divine dignity. Yet he did not make a display of this equality. Rather he willingly subjected himself. This patience and humility he teaches us to imitate. We are to refrain from making a display of our claims to equal dignity, but even more so we are called to lower ourselves into service as we follow the example of our Maker. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.8.1-2. 71

THE TRIUNE GOD NOT EXHAUSTED IN THIS SLAVERY. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The Word who appeared in the flesh was the same as the Word that was with God. But the earthly flesh he assumed was not the same as the Godhead until this too was changed into Godhead, so that necessarily some attributes belonged to God the Word, others to the form of a slave. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.3.62. 74

THE WILL OF THE FATHER AND THE SON WAS VOLUNTARY. MARIUS VICTORINUS: The Son was sent by the Father and fulfills the Father’s will. The mystery stated here is that it was by his own will that he came and assumed the form and image of a slave. . . . The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. . . . So what the Father willed the Son also willed, and what the Son willed the Father willed. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8. 75

HIS PARTICIPATION IN SLAVERY IS AN EXPRESSION OF HIS DIVINE COMPASSION. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: Read the record of his compassion. It pleased him, being the Word of God, to “take the form of a slave.” So he willed to be joined to our common human condition. He took to himself the toils of the members who suffer. He made our human maladies his own. He suffered and toiled on our behalf. This is in accord with his great love of humankind. DEMONSTRATION OF THE GOSPEL 10.1.22. 76

THE UNITY OF THE DIVERSE APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY. THEODORET: See how the varied attestors agree. The Evangelist says “the Word became flesh.” The apostle says that he, being in the form of God, “came to be in the form of a man” The Evangelist says “he pitched his tent among us.” The apostle says “he took the form of a slave.” The Evangelist says “we saw his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” The apostle speaks of One “who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” In a word, both teach the same: that, being God and the Son of God, and clothed in the Father’s glory and having the same nature and power as his Begetter, the One who “in the beginning was with God and was God” and wrought the creation “took the form of slave.” ERANISTES 1. 80

2:7c Being Born
REJECTED INTERPRETATIONS. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: If we take him simply and solely to be a man made from a woman, how could he be said to be in the form equal to the Father? If only a man, how could he have the fullness that would make sense of his being emptied? What height could he have occupied before that he might be said to have “humbled himself?” How did he “come to be in the likeness of men” if he was already so by nature? CHOLIUM 12 ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN. 81

THE MANHOOD EXPRESSES NOT A CHANGE IN GOD HIMSELF BUT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DIVINE ECONOMY OF HIS REVELATION. HILARY OF POITIERS: Note well the breathtaking economy by which the Son assumed flesh: Through the obedience of the one who was in the form of God [and] was emptying himself of the form of God, [he] was born as a man. In doing so, he took a new nature upon himself! This occurred not by a loss of his power and nature but by an assumption of a new condition. . . . Though he retained the power of his nature as God, he was in much of his earthly ministry temporarily relinquishing his exercise of the power of his nature as God as he walked as a man. The effect of this economy of order was this: The Son in his entirety, namely, as both man and God, was now, through the indulgence of the Father’s will, in union with the nature of the Father. This is what occurred to God the Son: that he became a man. ON THE TRINITY 9.38. 82

2:7d In the Likeness of Humanity
NOT FROM THE BEGINNING INVESTED WITH THAT LIKENESS. GREGORY OF NYSSA: He says of the Son that he has “come to be in the likeness and form of men.” If he “came to be” in this likeness, this obviously implies that he was not invested with it from the beginning. Before coming to be in that likeness he was not fashioned according to some corporeal pattern. For no embodied form could become the pattern for what is previously not embodied. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 83

IN HUMAN LIKENESS. CHRYSOSTOM: What does it mean to be “in a human likeness”? Does it mean that his appearance was merely a fantasy? This would be something merely similar to a human and not made in the “likeness of a man.” For to be made in “the likeness of a man” is to be a man. . . . So what does it mean, “in a human likeness”? With few exceptions he had all our common human properties. The exceptions: He was not born from sexual intercourse. He committed no sin. These properties he had which no human being has. He was not only human, which is what he appeared to be, but also God. . . . We are soul and body, but he is God, soul and body. For this reason Paul says “in the form”—and so that when you hear of his emptying you may not suppose that he underwent change, degradation and some sort of annihilation of his divinity. Rather remaining what he was he assumed what he was not. Becoming flesh, he remained the Word of God. So it is in this respect that he is “in the likeness of men,” and for this reason he says “and in form.” His nature was not degraded, nor was there any confusion [of the two natures], but he entered a form. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 85

NOT A PHANTOM. MARIUS VICTORINUS: It is not as though Paul was in the slightest uncertain about Christ’s identity that he said Christ was “found in human likeness.” He did not say “in human likeness” as though our Lord maybe was not truly a man but a phantom. Rather he was found in human likeness while still being God yet at the same time being truly a man in the flesh, with a physical human body that he had assumed. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8. 86

NOT A MAN ONLY, THOUGH HE APPEARED TO BE. THEODORET: He says of the divine Word that, being God, he was not seen to be God but wore a human appearance. Yet the words “in the likeness of men” are appropriate to him, for the nature that he assumed was truly human, and yet he was not [merely] a man, though he at first glance appeared to be only a man. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-7. 87

THE METAPHOR OF CLOTHING INADEQUATE. AUGUSTINE: He did not take on his humanity in the simple way that a person puts on clothes, as something exterior to him. Rather he took on human form in a manner inexpressibly more excellent and more intimate than that. The apostle has made it sufficiently clear what he meant “He was made to appear in human likeness.” He was not exhaustively reduced to being a man. He rather assumed the true human estate when he put on the man. ON DIVERSE QUESTIONS 73. 88

NOT ONE OF MANY. CHRYSOSTOM: He carefully uses the phrase “in human likeness.” For Christ was not one of the many but as one of the many. God the Word did not degenerate into a man. His essence as God did not change. Rather he appeared like a man, not deluding us with a phantom but instructing us in humility. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 89

2:8a Being Found in Human Form
NO REASON FOR SAYING “FOUND IN HUMAN FORM” UNLESS HE WAS GOD. AMBROSIASTER: Why is he “found in human form,” if not because he was also God? Before he allowed himself to descend he was always seen in the power of God. But having subsequently been made weak he was “found in human form?” . . . And the reason for saying like is to indicate that he was also God. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.8.5-6. 90

THE FORM OF GOD INVISIBLE. GAUDENTIUS: He added “being found in human form” because the form of God, which is properly God himself, has never been seen by anyone. TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 28. 91

THE MANHOOD NONETHELESS REAL. TERTULLIAN: Suppose the terms figure (or image or fashion), likeness and form referred merely to a phantom. There would then have been no substance to Christ’s humanity. But in this case figure, likeness and form all point to the reality of his humanity. He is truly God, as Son of the Father, in his figure and image. He is truly man, as the Son of Man, found in the figure and image of man. It is noteworthy that elsewhere Paul calls Christ the “image of the invisible God.” And indeed he had a reason for saying found, meaning that Christ was most certainly a man; for what is found surely must exist. Just as he was found to be God in power, so too he was a man in flesh. The apostle would not have declared him to become obedient to death if he had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more plainly does this appear when he adds the heavily laden words “even unto the death of the cross.” For he would not exaggerate the atrocity in extolling his power in a conflict which he knew to have been imaginary or a mere fantasy. In that case Christ would rather have eluded the cross than experienced it. There would then have been no virtue in his suffering but only an illusion. AGAINST MARCION 5.20.4-5. 93

HIS HUMANITY AS REAL AS HIS DIVINITY. BASIL OF CAESAREA: It is apparent that the Lord accepted natural feelings to confirm that his humanity was real and not illusory, but the feelings that come from wickedness, all those that besmirch the purity of our lives, he repudiated as being unworthy of his unsullied Godhead. LETTER 261. 94

2:8b Christ Humbled Himself
THE HUMILIATION VOLUNTARY. THEODORET: His humbling was not undertaken as a slave in relation to a master’s command. Rather he willingly undertook the saving work on our behalf. He obeyed as a son, not as a slave. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.8. 95

THE HUMILIATION HONORABLE. CHRYSOSTOM: He honored the Father all the more, not that you may honor him less but that you may marvel all the more. Here we learn that he is truly a son who honors his father more than all else. No one could have honored God the Father more than God the Son. The measure of his sublimity corresponds with the depth of his humility. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 96

HIS HUMILIATION DEMONSTRATES HIS VOLUNTARILY DIVESTED MAJESTY. HILARY OF POITIERS: Humility is hard, since the one who humbles himself has something magnificent in his nature that works against his lowering. The one who becomes obedient, however, undertakes the act of obedience voluntarily. It is precisely through the act of humbling that he becomes obedient. ON THE TRINITY 11.30. 97

HIS HUMBLING BECOMES OUR EXAMPLE. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He “humbled himself,” according to the Scriptures, “taking on himself the form of a slave.” He became like us that we might become like him. The work of the Spirit seeks to transform us by grace into a perfect copy of his humbling. FESTAL LETTER 10.4. 98

2:8c He Became Obedient
SALVATION THROUGH OBEDIENCE. ORIGEN: He “was made obedient even to death.” His obedience teaches us that we too cannot obtain salvation except through obedience. By this means he has reconstituted the laws of ruling and being ruled, so much so that he “has put all his enemies under his feet.” ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.5.6. 100

2:8d He Was Obedient unto Death
THE DEATH STILL MORE HONORABLE. CHRYSOSTOM: It was a great thing—ineffably great—that he became a slave. But to undergo death was much greater. Where can anything be found more paradoxical than this? This death was the most shameful of all, the most accursed. And he in death appeared to be a reprobate. This was not an ordinary death. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 102

THAT NONE MAY FEAR DEATH. AUGUSTINE: He humbled himself, being made obedient even unto death, even death on a cross, so that none of us, though being able to face death without fear, might shrink from any kind of death that human beings regard as a great disgrace. ON FAITH AND THE CREED 11. 103

2:8e Death on a Cross
HE PUT DEATH TO DEATH. EPIPHANIUS: The Word tasted death once on our behalf, the death of the cross. He went to his death so that by death he might put death to death. The Word, becoming human flesh, did not suffer in his divinity but suffered with humanity. ANCORATUS 92. 104

2:9a God Has Exalted Him
WHETHER THE DIVINE NATURE WAS EXALTED. THEODORET: Even to the most inattentive it is obvious that the divine nature needs nothing. He did not become human by being raised up from lowliness. Rather he abased himself from the utmost height. He did not receive what he did not have before but received as a man what he possessed as God. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.9. 105

HIS HUMANITY EXALTED. PSEUDO-VIGILIUS: It is not in his divine nature that the Son is said to have been exalted by the Father. Rather the one who was exalted and received “the name above every name” is the one who appeared by taking flesh from the Virgin’s womb, to be born as God and man. AGAINST VARIDMADUS THE ARIAN 30. 106

THE SON OF MAN EXALTED. ORIGEN: It was not the Word of God who needed or received exaltation. For the Word was in the beginning exalted with the Father. It was the Son of Man who was exalted from lowliness. This exaltation occurred when he had glorified God in his death. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 32.25. 107

THE DYING ONE EXALTED. GAUDENTIUS: “Therefore,” he says, “God exalted him.” But who was it that was exalted? Evidently the one who underwent the torture of the cross and death. It was not God himself, who is always on high throughout. TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 29. 108

WHAT WAS HUMBLED WAS EXALTED. ATHANASIUS: That “God has highly exalted him” does not imply that the essential nature of the Word at long last became exalted. For God the Son is and always was equal to God the Father. The exaltation is of the humanity. . . . The text says “he humbled himself” with reference to the assumption of the flesh. So too it says “he exalted him” with reference to the flesh. It was the human race that needed this, because of the humiliation of its flesh and because of its consequent death. Thus the Word who is immortal and the image of the Father “has taken the form of a slave” and suffered death on the cross as a man for our sake. He did this in order that he might thus present himself as an offering to the Father. It is thus as a man that he is said to have been exalted for our sake. Hence all of us die in Christ and through his death may again be exalted in Christ himself. AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.41. 109

WHAT IS EXALTED IS THAT WHICH WAS MADE LOW. GREGORY OF NYSSA: It is obvious that the highest is in need of no exaltation. Only what is lowly can be lifted to the exalted state, becoming now what it was not before. Being united to the Lord the human nature is lifted up to share in his divinity. What is exalted is that which has been lifted up from lowliness. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 110

NO INJURY TO THE GODHEAD. CHRYSOSTOM: Having said that he became a man, Paul is not afraid thereafter to predicate lowly things of him, knowing that this predication of lowly things does the Godhead no injury. It is to Christ’s human nature that they apply. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 111

TEACHING US HUMILITY. AMBROSIASTER: He shows what and how much his humility deserved, so that we, trampling down our boastfulness, might find ourselves all the more humble. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.11.1. 112

2:9b The Name Bestowed
IT COULD NOT BE GIVEN ADOPTIVELY. AMBROSIASTER: Scripture says that the gift was given to him who “emptied himself,” who “took the form of a slave,” who was “made to appear as a man,” who was “obedient to the Father.” But if it was a mere man and nothing else who was obedient to God the Father, what is remarkable about that? . . . His name is not above every name unless he is so by his very nature. A titular name rests solely on usage, not on the nobility of one’s nature. The creation does not bend its knees for a titular God but for the real God. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.11.6-8. 113

THE ERROR OF THOSE WHO SAY HIS GLORY CONSISTS IN BEING WORSHIPED BY US. CHRYSOSTOM: Those who teach falsely imply that his glory lies in his name itself. The inference is that his glory consists entirely in his being worshiped by us. The implication is that he would not be glorious until he received our worship. Is this all his glory means? Those who think this way are far from the greatness of God. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11. 114

2:9c The Name Above Every Name
THIS IS THE NAME OF GOD. NOVATIAN: He received “the name that is above every name,” which we must certainly understand as nothing other than the name of God. For it belongs to God to be above all. So it follows that the name that is above all belongs to him who is above all, namely, God. ON THE TRINITY 22.10. 115

THE PHRASE CONVEYS INEFFABILITY. GREGORY OF NYSSA: God is “above every name.” The only proper way to name God is as above every name. God exceeds every operation of the intellect. God cannot be contained in any nominal definition. This is a sign to us of God’s incommunicable greatness. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.587. 116

WHETHER HE HAD THIS NAME FOREVER. PSEUDO-AUGUSTINE: None of the faithful doubt that the Son of God was begotten in perfect reception of all that belongs to the character of God. The Son received all the attributes of divinity in being born from God the Father. It was then that he received “the name that is above all names,” that is, that he should be called what the Father is called. Nothing different is predicated of him with regard to the future, since he has all things before him. So he was born for the re-creation and restoration of all these. Seeing that order and reason demand that every knee should bow to the name of the Father, the Father bestowed this name upon the Son because of the salvation he was to perform. This name was bestowed when he begot the Son. The Father begot him that he might enjoy the same honor as the Father himself. QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, APPENDIX 39. 117

STILL EQUALLY GOD WHEN ASSUMING HUMANITY. GAUDENTIUS: The “name that is above every name” is God. It is not given to God in order that he should become God. For God the Son was the Word in the beginning with the Father. But the man assumed by the Son takes on his mission. In this way the Son of God, who had always existed, remains still equally God when joined to the humanity that he received from the Virgin. TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 29. 118

HIS HUMANITY NEVER SEVERED FROM HIS DIVINITY. FULGENTIUS: Through the Son human nature was redeemed. It was human nature that he undoubtedly came to redeem. It was this human nature that the Son took up into the unity of his person. And because his humanity is never sundered from the Son of God, it therefore rules in heaven and earth over all angels and all humanity. ON THE INCARNATION 12. 119

WHETHER THE NAME WAS GIVEN HIM AT BIRTH. AMBROSIASTER: Some argue “the name which is above every name” was given only to his humanity. In no way could this be so. For it is not possible that God should lack those things that he once had. For God, even while assuming humanity, remained God. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.11.4. 120

THE GREATNESS OF THE NATURE OF HUMANITY. NESTORIUS: There must be two natures, that of the divinity and that of the humanity. The divinity has emptied itself into the likeness of a servant. The humanity, in the likeness of a servant, has been raised into “the name which is above all names.” . . . This in fact is what summarizes the chief greatness of the nature of humanity. Christ remains in the nature of humanity. It is he who accepts “a name that is more excellent than all names.” He does this neither in consequence of moral progress nor in consequence of knowledge and faith. Rather he accepts that it has come about that humanity should be transformed in his image and his person. In this way humanity becomes by exaltation what God is, the name which is above all names. THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES 58, 61. 121

WHETHER THE NAME IS AN ETERNAL REALITY NEWLY REVEALED. MARIUS VICTORINUS: He received “the name that is above every name.” He received this name because of his saving word, because of the mystery of his passion, where death was vanquished by the very death of Christ. Through this grace he received the name. It was at that point that the name rightly accrued to him. But the reality to which the name pointed was already given before. The Word, the very power of God, did not become real for the first time only when it entered flesh. Rather it possessed its reality as the power, wisdom, action and work of God from the outset, when it was called the Word and when it indeed was the Word. It is that same Word that has now put on flesh . . . that has received the title of Son, which title is above every name. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.9-11. 122

WHETHER THE NAME SIGNIFIES PROGRESS IN THE WORD. AMBROSIASTER: It is not assumed here that the Son of God was lacking or imperfect before “the name that is above every name” was given to Christ. . . . Even before his passion he showed himself equal to God, as I have stated. Hence it is clear that he was born perfect, for he is seen to have possessed all things from the beginning. He was born in the fullness of divinity for the very purpose of doing all that he was destined to perform. So he had already received the gift before he performed the things that he was born to do. It therefore seems that the gift of God, which consists in his being Son, was that his name should be “above every name,” which consists in his being God. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.11.2. 123

THE NAME MAKES JESUS OUR JUDGE. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: That [saving sacrifice] which no human or angelic or divine power had yet endured he accepted for the sake of our salvation. Therefore upon him alone the Father has bestowed the name that is above every name, committing to him the judgment of all. COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 2.(53).63.5-6. 124

OVERVIEW: Jesus is worshiped as God in the unity of his divine-human being (GAUDENTIUS). His humanity is penetrated by his divinity and vice versa through the communication of idioms (GREGORY OF NYSSA). He who rightly worshiped the Father now receives our worship (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Every kind of creature now reveres him. Even the angelic spirits bow metaphorically (ORIGEN). Christ now sits as ruler as firstborn from the dead (GREGORY OF NYSSA). This demonstrates that Christ is God (THEODORET). The Father is glorified through the salvation of humanity (ATHANASIUS).

2:10a Every Knee Should Bow
HE WHO HAS ASSUMED THE WORSHIPING NATURE IS HIMSELF WORSHIPED. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He worships as one who has assumed the worshiping nature of humanity. It is this same One who is now worshiped as transcending the worshiping nature of humanity. He is now known to be God. SCHOLIUM 34 ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN. 2

THE ONE GOD-MAN IS WORSHIPED. GAUDENTIUS: This means that after the mystery of the passion and the triumph of the ascension he who was wholly the Son of God with that which he had consented to be for our sakes, while remaining in the glory of God the Father (which means of course in the divinity of his own nature), should be adored by all the powers in heaven, on earth and below. TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 30. 3

THE EXALTED ONE BECOMES LOWLY SO THAT THE LOWLY ONE MAY RECEIVE THE FRUITS OF HIS EXALTATION. GREGORY OF NYSSA: This name has become superior to every name. His divinity is such that it cannot be adequately manifested merely through verbal signs, no matter how exalted they are. As the exalted One comes to be in the lowly, so the lowly One may receive in return the properties of the exalted. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS. 4

WORSHIP DUE TO ONE WHO IS GOD BY NATURE. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: God the Word inhabited as his own temple the body taken from the woman. In this body lived a rational soul. God remade it into his own glory. On this account the holy Scripture declares that worship is proper only to the one who is God by nature. This is what Paul means when he writes that “at the name of Christ Jesus every knee shall bow.” FESTAL LETTER 8.6. 5

2:10b In Heaven, on Earth and Under the Earth
DISTINGUISHING IN HEAVEN, ON THE EARTH AND UNDER THE EARTH. ORIGEN: From a single beginning come many differences and varieties in creation. All these are now being recalled once again, synoptically in this text. They are now being viewed in relation to God’s goodness made known through the obedience of Christ. They are being drawn into a unity by the Holy Spirit. Everything is moving toward a common end, which corresponds to the goodness of the beginning. This means all those “in heaven and earth and the lower regions,” who, “bowing the knee at the name of Jesus,” have declared through this very act the tokens of their subjection. In these three appellations the whole universe is indicated. All things issue from one origin. They have been driven by their own motions in diverse ways. They are to be allotted different levels of blessedness in accord with their own willing. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.6.2. 6

WHETHER INCORPOREAL POWERS LITERALLY BOW. ORIGEN: We should not understand this carnally, so as to suppose that even the heavenly bodies, which he says bend their knees, do this with fleshly limbs. . . . What spirit has knees? But the bending of the knees indicates that all is in subjection and observes the worship of God. COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 9.41. 7

FIRSTBORN. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The One who once came into the world has now become the Firstborn from the dead, both of brothers in faith and of all creation. He will return to the world as judge of all the world in righteousness, as the prophet declares, when it will become clear. The name of Firstborn, which he assumed first on our behalf, will not be cast away in those last days. Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus. He is above every name. The whole company of angels worships this One who has been called the Firstborn. They all rejoice in the restoration of humanity, whom he has restored to their original grace by becoming the Firstborn among us. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.2.48. 8

2:11a Every Tongue Will Confess Christ Is Lord
CHRIST IS LORD. THEODORET: Every tongue stands for every people. But if the confession of Christ as Lord is a glorification of the Father, it is clear that those who call him a creature and a slave deface the glory of the Father also. In these few words, however, the divine apostle has subdued every heresy, among those who blaspheme the divinity of the Only Begotten, and those who deny his humanity and those who misconstrue the hypostatic union of the two natures. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.11. 9

2:11b The Glory of God the Father
HUMANITY RECREATED. ATHANASIUS: The glory of the Father is that the human race not only was created but was re-created when lost. It was given life once again when dead, so as to become a renewed temple of God. For the powers in heaven also, the angels and the archangels, worship him and now worship the Lord “in the name of Jesus.” This joy and exaltation belongs to human beings, because the Son of God, having himself become a human being, is now worshiped. The heavenly powers are not offended when they behold all of us being led into our heavenly abode as we share in his body. This could not have happened in any other way. It happened only because, “being in the form of God and taking the form of a slave, he humbled himself,” agreeing to assume our bodily condition “even to death.” AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.42. 10

OVERVIEW: About to suffer for the whole world and to redeem all nations by his blood, Jesus rests in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper (JEROME). A woman with an alabaster jar came to him. Leprosy was considered a most unclean disease, yet the woman saw that Jesus had both healed the man and had gone into his house. She did not come to him on the premise that he was a mere man. If he were only human, she would not have wiped his feet with her hair (CHRYSOSTOM). This woman prefigures the Gentile people, who would give glory to God through the passion of Christ. Special thanks are due to the whole female gender for the care they take of the body. Jesus would soon transfer all care of his body and all affection for his soul to the honor and praise of God (HILARY OF POITIERS). Various narratives tell of different women. Some pour out precious ointment over the head of Jesus; others do not anoint the head but only the feet. Others do not pour out abundantly but anoint only so much. Some of them anoint with ointment, leaving the whole house filled with the odor of his divinity (ORIGEN). The various narratives also differ as to whether the apostles were indignant for the sake of the poor or Judas for the sake of his own gain (JEROME). When the woman’s action was challenged on the grounds of wastefulness, the Lord reminded them they would have much time to look after the poor. The Gentiles would be buried with him in the outpouring of ointment by this woman, for rebirth is given only to those who have died with him (HILARY OF POITIERS). She was praised by the Lord for having announced beforehand his Passion by bringing to him what is needed for a funeral. Far from condemning her as having erred, Jesus promises that what has been done will not go unnoticed. The world would remember openly that which was done in that house and in secret (CHRYSOSTOM).

26:14 Judas Iscariot Went to the Priests
THE TWO JUDASES. ORIGEN: Judas means “confessor.” Luke the Evangelist numbers both “Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot” among the twelve apostles. Since two of Christ’s disciples were given this same name and since there can be no meaningless symbol in the Christian mystery, I am convinced that the two Judases represent two distinct types of confessing Christians. The first, symbolized by Judas the son of James, perseveres in remaining faithful to Christ. The second type, however, after once believing and professing faith in Christ, then abandons him out of greed. He defects to the heretics and to the false priests of the Jews, that is, to counterfeit Christians, and (insofar as he is able) delivers Christ, the “Word of truth,” over to them to be crucified and destroyed. This type of Christian is represented by Judas Iscariot, who “went out to the chief priests” and agreed on a price for betraying Christ. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 78. 26

THEN ONE OF THE TWELVE. CHRYSOSTOM: Then. When? It was when it had been made clear that he was being prepared for burial, that the Gospels would be preached everywhere and that he had been shown honor. Then Judas did the devil’s deed.
But what can be the reason they mention his surname? Because there was also another Judas.
And why do they specifically say that “he was one of the twelve”? They have opted entirely to hide none of those things which seem to be matters of reproach. And yet they might have merely said that he was one of the disciples, for there were others besides. But now they add, “of the twelve,” as though they had said, of the first company of those selected as the best, of those alongside Peter and John. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 80.2. 27

26:15-16 Betrayal for Thirty Pieces of Silver
THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER. ORIGEN: Let us consider what Judas said to the Jewish priests: “What will you give me if I hand him over to you?” He was willing to take money in exchange for handing over the Word of God. They do the same thing who accept sensual or worldly goods in exchange for handing over and casting out from their souls the Savior and Word of truth who came to dwell with them. Indeed, it would be fitting to apply Judas’s example to all who show contempt for the Word of God and betray him, as it were, by committing sin for the sake of money or for any selfish motive. People who behave in this way appear openly to be calling out to the powers of the enemy who offer worldly gain in return for the sin of betraying God’s Word, saying, “What will you give me if I hand him over to you?”
“And they gave him thirty pieces of silver.” The number of coins they gave Judas was equivalent to the number of years the Savior had sojourned in this world. For at the age of thirty, he was baptized and began to preach the gospel, like Joseph was thirty years old when he began to gather grain for his brothers. Just as at that time the grain was prepared by God for the sons of Israel but given also to the Egyptians, so also the gospel was prepared for the saints but preached also to the unfaithful and wicked. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 78. 29

WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME? CHRYSOSTOM: The Romans had set the Jews over the people in order that they should provide for their good order. But by this time the Jews were becoming insurgent. Their government was now undergoing a change according to prophecy.
To these priests Judas went “and said, ‘What will you give me if I deliver him to you?’ And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.” Judas was by now afraid of the multitude and desired to seize him alone.
O madness! The covetousness of Judas altogether blinds him! He had often seen Jesus when he went through the midst and did not betray him. Jesus had afforded many demonstrations of his Godhead and power, and no one had laid hold on him. Even at the supper Judas did not cease to talk with him and receive his care. This could have put an end to his evil thought. But all this profited nothing. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 80.3. 31

THE OPPORTUNITY TO BETRAY. ORIGEN: “From then on he sought an opportunity to betray him.” Luke’s Gospel shows most clearly the kind of opportunity for which Judas was looking when it says, “And he sought an opportunity to betray him in the absence of the crowds,” that is, when the people were not with him but when he was alone with his disciples. His betrayer did the deed after supper, when Christ was alone in the garden of Gethsemane. For once Judas reached his agreement with the Jews, he determined that his opportunity would come when Jesus was not with the crowds. Notice how even today the betrayers of Jesus Christ, Word of truth and Word of God, see their best opportunity to hand him over at a time when Christians are being persecuted. . . . They are at their worst when the number of his faithful is at its fewest. And since there is a time for all things, for Solomon said “there is a time to be born and a time to die,” the time for betraying the Word of truth was specifically when very few of the faithful were with Christ. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 78. 34

OVERVIEW: The first day of Unleavened Bread is the evening before the feast day. Even though they owned no home in which to observe the feast, Jesus and the disciples observed the Passover in order to show that Jesus was willing to suffer (CHRYSOSTOM). The owner of the house where Jesus and the disciples observed the Passover is the same as the one more clearly defined in Mark and Luke (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Origen likens this man to Moses, who bears the law, while Jerome likens the room in which they ate to the spiritual law.
When Jesus announced that one of the disciples would betray him, the disciples were sorrowful because they knew how quickly human nature can change (ORIGEN). At first Jesus withheld Judas’s identity in order to allow him time to repent. The other disciples, however, were distraught. Jesus therefore revealed Judas’s identity (CHRYSOSTOM). Jesus’ ultimate betrayer is the devil (ORIGEN). Judas condemned himself by calling Jesus “teacher” instead of “Lord” (JEROME).

26:17-19 Preparing for the Passover
THE FIRST DAY OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. CHRYSOSTOM: By “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread,” he means the day before that feast. For it is customary always to reckon the day from the evening. He mentions this with regard to the evening of the Passover. It was on the fifth day of the week they came to him. Hence on the day before the feast of unleavened bread they came to him. As to the time, Mark says, “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb.” THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 81.1. 3

I WILL KEEP THE PASSOVER. CHRYSOSTOM: The disciples came to him then on the first day, that is, the evening, when the Passover was drawing very near, and said, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” Even from this it is clear that he had no house, no place in which to live, and I suppose neither had they. For surely they would have asked him to come there. But none of them had anything, having given away all their worldly possessions. Why did he keep the Passover? To indicate in every way and until the last day that he was not opposed to the law. And for what possible reason does he send them to an unknown person? To also show by this that he might have avoided suffering. For he had the power to change the minds of those who crucified him. So it is once again clear: He is willing to suffer. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 81.1. 4

GO TO A CERTAIN ONE. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: Saying “a certain person” does not reveal a name but indicates any one of the saints. For the Word governs over every saint. The disciples of the Lord are the first he receives —evangelists, apostles foreordained in their souls even in the same way as the Christ. He does not exclude; rather, unbidden, the Holy Spirit dwells within each from the hour of holy baptism. So this “certain man” is the one with the “earthen pot washed with water” as described by Mark and Luke. FRAGMENT 285. 6

THE BEARER OF WATER. ORIGEN: I think that the man “carrying a jar of water” whom the disciples met when they entered the city and whom Jesus wanted them to follow into his house was bringing it into the house not only that the house might be clean but also more richly endowed. He was serving the head of the household (that is, the intellect), bearing purifying water in an earthen vessel “that the heights of power might belong to God.” Or perhaps he was supplying potable water in the earthen vessel so that the Son of God could provide new growth to the vine, for the servant of the intellect is the water of the Law and the Prophets, which must be mixed with the wine of the evangelical word. But we who wish to belong to the church and to celebrate the Passover with Jesus follow that man, whom I believe to be Moses, giver of the law, who bears this kind of water, carrying spiritual doctrine about in historical vessels. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 79. 10

THE DISCIPLES PREPARED THE PASSOVER. JEROME: The other Evangelist writes that they found a large upper room furnished and ready and they made preparations there for him. It seems to me that the room symbolizes the spiritual law which, emerging from the restraints of the written record, receives the Savior in a lofty place. Paul says that what he formerly counted as gain, he now despised as loss and refuse, that he might prepare a worthy guest chamber for the Lord. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.19. 11

26:20-22 At Table with the Twelve Disciples
READINESS FOR COMMUNION. ORIGEN: Perhaps someone will ask: If the twelve apostles all had clean consciences (that is, if they were all innocent of any act of betrayal against the teacher), why were they “sorrowful” at the news that he would be betrayed, as though it could have been one of them to whom he was referring? I believe that each of the disciples knew from the things Jesus had taught them that human nature is unstable and vulnerable to be turned toward sin and that in struggling “against the principalities and powers and rulers of this world of darkness” a man can be besieged and fall or be so weakened by the power of the enemy that he becomes evil. Aware of these things, then, each disciple was “very sorrowful” because Christ had said “one of you will betray me.” And each disciple, not knowing what he might do in the future, began to inquire one by one: “Is it I, Lord?” Yet, if the apostles had good reason to fear that they might betray him, we who have not yet tasted of perfection must also be afraid of falling victim to future weakness. This is why the apostle said, “I am certain that neither death nor life . . . is able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.” But whoever is not yet perfect should remain aware that he is still capable of falling. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 81. 14

ONE OF YOU WILL BETRAY ME. CHRYSOSTOM: “When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; and as they were eating, he said, ‘Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.’ ” Even before the supper he had washed the feet of Judas. See how he spares the traitor. He did not say, “Judas, you will betray me,” but only “one of you will betray me.” This was again to offer time for repentance by keeping his identity concealed. He was willing to allow all the others to be alarmed, just for the sake of redeeming this one. All the others, whose feet he had washed and who had accompanied him everywhere and to whom he had promised so many things, were alarmed unnecessarily because of the one. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 81.1. 15

IS IT I, LORD? CHRYSOSTOM: Intolerable sorrow then seized that holy company. John says, “The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.” Each of them asked in fear concerning himself, although conscious to themselves of no such imagination. But Matthew writes, “They were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, ‘Is it I, Lord?’ ” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.”
Note precisely at what time Jesus revealed his identity. It was when it was his will to deliver the rest from this trouble. For they were horrified with fear and pressing in their questions. He wanted to give Judas time to change his mind, but he wanted also to relieve the others from their distress. But Judas continued to be incorrigible and past any hope of change. So now he is unmasked. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 81.1. 17

26:23-25 Woe to the Betrayer
BY WHOM THE SON OF MAN IS BETRAYED. ORIGEN: According to all appearances, Jesus departed and was about to suffer on the cross. In reality, however, he both departed and remained in the world with his disciples, keeping them in the faith, for they would not have been able to abide in his faith, especially once they saw him dead, if he had not been guarding their hearts invisibly. Christ didn’t say “woe to that man by whom he is betrayed” but “woe to that man through whom he is betrayed,” showing that Judas was only the means of his betrayal, whereas the agent of his betrayal was another, that is, the devil. The woe, however, is not only for Judas but for every betrayer of Christ, for whoever betrays one of Christ’s disciples betrays Christ himself. Even though he is betrayed by the devil, nevertheless woe to those through whom his betrayal comes. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 83. 18

THEY WERE SORROWFUL. JEROME: The others were grieved and very much saddened as they questioned Christ: “Surely, Lord, you don’t mean me?” Lest he seem to betray himself by keeping silent, he too, whose conscience was troubling him and who had boldly placed his hand in the dish, questioned him: “Surely, teacher, you don’t mean me?” To this he added lip homage and a show of incredulity. The others, who were not traitors, said, “Surely, Lord, you don’t mean me?” He who was the traitor did not call him Lord but teacher, as if to have an excuse, upon rejecting the Lord, for having betrayed at most a teacher. “Jesus answered, ‘You have said so.’ ” The traitor was put to shame by the same response Christ would later give to Pilate. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.25. 20

OVERVIEW: In the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s own presence in body and blood brings salvation from death and sin (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). The bread is broken and the wine poured as a sacrament to God the Word (ORIGEN). The sacrament of bread and wine prefigured Jesus’ giving of his own body and blood (JEROME). Jerome interprets “the blood of the covenant” as the spiritual fruit, that is, the belief of Israel, God’s choice vine. The timing of Jesus’ ordination of the sacrament is important. Through the sacrament of Passover, Christ willingly becomes the fulfillment of the Old Testament law (CHRYSOSTOM). Christ partakes in the sacrament with us (ORIGEN).
God did not will the death of Christ, but God did allow it (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Christ’s resurrection was indeed a bodily resurrection; the disciples ate and drank with Christ after he was raised. Nonetheless his was a spiritual body that was not dependent on food and drink (CHRYSOSTOM).

26:26-27 The Bread and the Cup
HIS BODY AND BLOOD. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: After Judas the betrayer had gone out, the Savior revealed the saving mystery to the Eleven. Now Christ was about to be raised within a short time in order to come and appear before the Father with his own body. So that we could have his body present, he has given us his own body and blood that it might ruin the power of decay. For without the presence of Christ, salvation from death is not possible and humanity is unable to be freed from sin which dwells along with us in this life. He dwells with us in our souls through the Holy Spirit, and we become sharers in holiness, heavenly people and spiritual name bearers. FRAGMENT 290. 1

JESUS TOOK BREAD. ORIGEN: The bread which God the Word revealed to be his own body is the Word of the sustainer of souls. What was set upon the table was the Word proceeding from God the Word, bread from heavenly bread, as it is written: “You have prepared a table before me in the presence of my enemies.” And the wine which God the Word revealed to be his blood is the Word filling and wondrously inebriating the hearts of all who drink it. It is the Word contained in that chalice about which it is written: “My cup overflows.” This wine is the fruit of the true vine who said, “I am the true vine.” It is blood of grapes processed in the winepress of his Passion. Likewise the bread is the Word of Christ ground from that grain of wheat which “falls into the earth” and “bears much fruit.” It was not the visible bread that he held in his hands which God the Word called his body, but it was the Word in whose sacrament the bread was to be broken. Nor was it the visible drink that he identified as his blood, but it was the Word in whose sacrament the libation was to be poured out. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 85. 6

BREAD AND WINE. JEROME: After the typical Passover meal was over and he had eaten the flesh of the lamb with his apostles, he took the bread that strengthens human hearts and moved on to the true sacrament of the Passover. Thus even as Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, had prefigured Christ by offering bread and wine, so Jesus would exemplify this with his real body and blood. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.27. 9

HE TOOK BREAD. CHRYSOSTOM: But the evening is a sure sign of the fullness of times and that the things were now come to the very end. [He took bread] and gave thanks to teach us how we ought to celebrate this sacrament and to show that he does not unwillingly come to the Passion. He is teaching us so that whatever we may suffer, we may bear it thankfully. So it is a sign of good hope. If the [Mosaic] type pointed to deliverance from bondage, how much more will the truth he embodies set free the whole world. He is being delivered up for the benefit of our whole human race. This is why he did not ordain the sacrament before this time. But from then on, when the rites of the law were no longer in effect, Jesus ordained it. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.1. 10

HE TOOK THE CUP. ORIGEN: If therefore we wish to receive the bread of blessing from Jesus, who is eager to give it, we should enter the city and go into the house, prepared beforehand, where Jesus kept the Passover with his disciples. We ascend to the “large, furnished upper room” where he “took the cup” from the Father and, “when he had given thanks, he gave it to them” who had gone up there with him and said, “Drink this, for this is my blood of the new covenant.” The cup was both consumed and poured out. It was consumed by the disciples. It was “poured out for the remission of sins” committed by those who drink it. If you want to know in what sense it was poured out, compare this saying with what was written [by Paul]: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts.” If the blood of the covenant was poured into our hearts for the remission of our sins, then by the pouring of that potable blood into our hearts all the sins we have committed in the past will be remitted and wiped clean. He who took the cup and said “drink this all of you” will not depart from us who drink it but will drink it with us (since he himself is in each of us), for we are unable alone or without him either to eat of the bread or to drink of the fruit of the true vine. You should not marvel that he who is himself the bread also eats the bread with us or that he who is himself the cup of the fruit of the vine also drinks it with us. This is possible because the Word of God is omnipotent and is at once the bearer of many different names, for the multitude of his virtues are innumerable, since he is himself every virtue. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 86. 13

26:28 Poured Out for the Forgiveness of Sins
MY BLOOD OF THE COVENANT. JEROME: From material things he moves on to spiritual things—namely, the vine transplanted from Egypt is the people of Israel to whom the Lord speaks through Jeremiah: “Yet I planted you a choice vine. . . . How then have you degenerated and become a wild vine?” Isaiah the prophet also celebrates this in his lovely canticle, and Scripture bears witness to it in different places. Therefore the Lord says that he will not drink of this fruit of the vine except in the kingdom of his Father. I believe the kingdom of the Father is the faith of the believers, which the apostle confirms when he says, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Therefore, when the Jews have received the kingdom of the father—note that he says “of the father” and not “of God” (every “father” is the name of the son)—when, as I say, they have believed in God the Father and the Father has led them to the Son, the Lord will drink of their wine, like Joseph reigning in Egypt, who will drink and be merry with his brothers. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.29. 15

WHAT WAS FORESHADOWED. CHRYSOSTOM: Why was this sacrament ordained at the time of the Passover? That we might learn that he is the giver of the law and that the things that are foreshadowed in the law are fulfilled in him. The Old Testament was a type of the things to come. He is the truth of those things. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.1. 16

26:29-30 In My Father’s Kingdom
WHETHER THE FATHER WILLED THE SON’S DEATH. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: The disciples were not merely confused; rather the matter greatly disturbed them, and the knowledge of this mystery was hard to grasp. How could one be raised from the dead, or one with countless signs done on behalf of the people be handed over to death and dishonor? Yet this agrees with what the prophet said: “Strike the shepherd.” David also says to the Father, “Therefore those whom you struck, they will persecute.” However, not all this occurred at the will of the Father; he did not desire for him [the Son] to suffer, if only the Jews would have accepted him. So one cannot say he willed a murder. The Father consented with the Son’s choice to suffer this. So it is written that the Father struck “the shepherd.” He permitted him to suffer yet had the power to prevent the suffering. Something like this is at work in the passage that says Pilate was “over” Christ. “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above,” that is, “if the Father had not permitted me to suffer.” FRAGMENT 292. 20

I SHALL NOT DRINK AGAIN OF THIS VINE. CHRYSOSTOM: For because he had discoursed with them concerning his Passion and cross, he again introduces what he has to say about his resurrection. Here he speaks of “my Father’s kingdom,” which was his way of speaking of his own resurrection.
And in what sense did he drink after he was raised again? We must answer carefully to guard against those of low mind who might suppose the resurrection was merely an appearance. The apostles understood themselves after the resurrection to have eaten and drunk with him. He said this to show them that they would see him manifestly risen and that he would be with them once more. They themselves were to be witnesses to these events, in that they both saw them and experienced them. So he says, I will not drink the fruit of this vine again with you “until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” You will see me rise again. You will bear witness to my resurrection. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.2. 21

WHEN I DRINK IT NEW. CHRYSOSTOM: But what is “new”? He will drink it new as having an immortal and incorruptible body, a spiritual body. He will not drink out of need for drink. For it is not a body that suffers or has bodily needs. It was not because he needed to eat and drink after the resurrection that he spoke in this way of that which is new but in order to give them full assurance of his resurrection. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.2. 22

SINGING A HYMN. ORIGEN: After the disciples celebrated the feast with their teacher and received the bread of blessing and ate the body of the Word and drank the cup of thanksgiving, Christ taught them to sing a hymn to the Father for these gifts and to pass from one height to another height, for the faithful are never able to do anything in the valley. So they went up to “the Mount of Olives,” where each one of them, like a fruitful olive tree, was able to say, “I am like a green olive tree in the house of God.” And those who had not yet become “like a green olive tree in the house of God” but were still “like olive shoots around the table” of their spiritual father, were also able to be present on the Mount of Olives, about which Zechariah prophesied. And how fitting it was that this mount of mercy be chosen as the place where the disciples would be forewarned of their future weakness. It is fitting because Christ did not wish upon them what he only foretold, for he was then already preparing to receive converts, not to banish defectors. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 86. 26

OVERVIEW: Those who fell away from Christ on the night he was betrayed did so because they had not yet received the staying power of the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN). Jesus stresses the fact that they fell away as a fulfillment of prophecy. This fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy increases the faith of the community (CHRYSOSTOM). Jesus, the shepherd, was killed in order to bring unity among the many wandering sheep (JEROME).
Why did Christ say he would “go before you to Galilee” after he was raised? Cyril of Alexandria claims that this indicated that Jesus left the Jews in order to lead the Gentiles. Chrysostom, however, says that it was in order that the Jews might believe in him. Peter not only fell away from Christ but abandoned him. Through his denial, Peter demonstrates the wickedness of human nature. The other disciples accepted Jesus’ word that they would fall away. Perhaps Peter was hungry for recognition (ORIGEN).

26:31 You Will All Fall Away
YOU WILL FALL AWAY THIS NIGHT. ORIGEN: They didn’t fall away in the daytime but at night, and it was on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. Peter also denied Christ at night, not during the day. Moreover, it was still in the middle of the night, since the cock had not yet crowed. Anyone who questions how the disciples could have fallen away after seeing such great signs and wonders and after hearing words of equal power (for the signs and wonders were performed by his words) should realize that Christ wanted to demonstrate through this warning that just as “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit,” so also no one is able to keep from falling away except by the Holy Spirit. When what Jesus had foretold came to pass, “You will all fall away from me this night,” it was still true that “the Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” If we . . . who have already professed Jesus to be Lord by the Holy Spirit (for “all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God”), then fall away or deny him, we will not have an excuse like those who fell away or denied him without the Holy Spirit. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 87. 4

I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD. CHRYSOSTOM: Then he said to them, “You will all fall away because of me.” After this he mentions a prophecy: “For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ ”
He was urging them to be attentive to what has been prophetically predicted of his death and resurrection, and at the same time he wanted to make it plain that he was indeed crucified according to God’s purpose. All of this was to show that he was no alien from the old covenant or from the God who preached it. What was done in the Old Testament was a dispensation. All the prophets proclaimed all things beforehand from the beginning that are included in this salvation event. All this was to increase faith.
And he teaches us to know what the disciples were before the crucifixion and what they did after the crucifixion. For indeed they who were not able so much as to stand their ground when he was crucified, after his death became mighty and stronger than adamant. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.2. 6

THE FLOCK WILL BE SCATTERED. JEROME: “For it is written, ‘I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ ” Zechariah the prophet says the same thing, only differently; and if I am not mistaken, God is addressed in the person of the prophet: “Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered.” In harmony with these words is the psalm, which is recited in its entirety to the Lord: “For they persecute him whom you have struck.” The good shepherd is struck, however, that he may lay down his life for his sheep and that out of many flocks of wandering sheep there may be one flock and one shepherd. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.31. 9

26:32 I Will Go Ahead of You to Galilee
AFTER I AM RISEN. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He did not leave the disciples with sad expressions but proclaimed the resurrection to them ahead of time, freeing them from grief, and he promised to go ahead of them into Galilee. In this way he shows that he is about to desert the Jews and go to the Gentiles. FRAGMENT 293. 10

GIVING COMPLETE ASSURANCE. CHRYSOSTOM: He does not permit them to become sorrowful but immediately says, “But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.” For he does not immediately appear from heaven on a single occasion and then depart to a distant country. Rather, he promises to come in resurrected form to the same nation in which he had also been crucified, and nearly to the same place. All this was to give complete assurance that he had indeed been crucified and that he indeed rose again, thereby to comfort them more abundantly when in sorrow. Therefore also he specified “to Galilee,” in order that being freed from the fears of the Jews they might believe his saying. This is why he indeed appeared there. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.2. 11

26:33-35 You Will Deny Me
I WILL NEVER FALL AWAY. ORIGEN: The other disciples only fell away from Jesus, but Peter, who thought that he could begin with deceit and end up with the truth, both fell away from Jesus and also denied him because of the audacious promise he made that he would never fall away.
It was not only out of carelessness but almost also out of wickedness that he said, “Even if all fall away because of you, I will not fall away.” He made a rash promise because he did not know the deceitfulness of human nature. This is why Peter didn’t simply fall away from Jesus or even deny him once but abandoned him so completely that he denied him three times. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 88. 12

YOU WILL DENY ME THREE TIMES. ORIGEN: It seems to me that Jesus’ other disciples had the foresight and wisdom (when it was first said “you will fall away because of me tonight”) not to profess that they would never fall away, for they saw the truth of Jesus’ prediction. But because only to Peter alone was it said, “Truly I tell you, before the cock crows you will deny me three times,” they eventually promised along with Peter, “Even if we have to die with you, we will not deny you.” The difference between Peter and the other disciples is this: Peter did not acquiesce even after Jesus prophesied that he would deny him three times before the cock crowed. The others, however, who were not included in this prophecy or in things said only to Peter, responded with a promise which did not seek to make a liar out of the Lord, as Peter’s promise did. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 88. 13

PETER’S BRAVADO. CHRYSOSTOM: Peter then spoke confidently and lifted himself up over the rest, saying, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” It may be that in some degree his bravado sprang from jealousy. For at supper they were all talking about which one of them was the greater. This passion for recognition was still troubling them. Therefore Jesus resisted Peter, not compelling him to a future denial—God forbid! But he left him destitute of his help, convicting human nature. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 82.3. 15

OVERVIEW: Gethsemane was known as a holy place, a place of prayer (ORIGEN). To spare the disciples greater sorrow, Jesus prayed alone in the garden (CHRYSOSTOM). Jesus was sorrowful too, not from fear of death but from fear that his disciples would no longer believe in him after his death (HILARY OF POITIERS, JEROME). In the garden, then, Jesus asks the disciples to “keep watch” (ORIGEN).
Jesus asked that God remove the cup from him. Origen centers this request on God’s justice. Jesus’ request shows his full humanity (CHRYSOSTOM). Ultimately following God’s will, however, shows Jesus’ higher will (LEO THE GREAT), which is in harmony with God’s (CHRYSOSTOM). In spite of the sleeping disciples, Jesus models perseverance in prayer (ORIGEN). He is concerned that the disciples not fall into temptation (HILARY OF POITIERS, JEROME), and he especially admonishes Peter to be contrite of heart while acknowledging the limits of humanity (CHRYSOSTOM). To one’s ability, however, one can be alert. The prayers of those who “watch and pray” will be heard, but it is appropriate to sleep when the Lord commands us to sleep (ORIGEN).
Jesus’ betrayal came at a time appointed by God, and Jesus did not flee from it even though he was guiltless (CHRYSOSTOM). As Jesus was “delivered into the hands of sinners” in the garden at that appointed time, so is Christ betrayed by those who fall away from him in the present day. Likewise, all who betray Jesus also “deliver him up” (ORIGEN).

26:36 A Place Called Gethsemane
GETHSEMANE. JEROME: Gethsemane is interpreted as the “very fertile valley” where the Lord ordered his disciples to sit down and wait for him to return while he prayed alone for everyone. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.37. 1

WHILE I PRAY. ORIGEN: Jesus brought his disciples from the upper room to a garden which was called Gethsemane because, after he was betrayed, he did not want to be arrested in the same place where he and his disciples had eaten the Passover. Even before he was betrayed, however, he thought it fitting to choose to pray in places devoted purely to prayer, for he knew that some locations are holier than others, as it is written: “The place where you are standing is holy ground.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 89. 3

26:37 Jesus Was Sorrowful and Troubled
HE TOOK THREE WITH HIM. CHRYSOSTOM: His disciples were clinging to him inseparably. So he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” For it was usual with him to pray apart from them. He did this to teach us how to pray, how to use silence and solitude to pray for great matters. And taking with him the three, he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” Why does he not take all of them with him? That they might not be more sorrowful. He took only those who had been spectators of his glory. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.1. 7

HE BEGAN TO BE SORROWFUL. HILARY OF POITIERS: When we read that the Lord was sad, we must examine everything that was said to find out why he was sad. He previously warned that they would all fall away. Brimming with confidence, Peter responded that even though all the others might be alarmed, he would not be moved—he who the Lord predicted would deny knowing him three times. In fact, Peter and all the other disciples promised that even in the face of death they would not deny him. He then proceeded on and ordered his disciples to sit down while he prayed. Having brought with him Peter, James and John, he began to grieve. Before he brought them along with him, he did not feel sad. It was only after they had accompanied him that he grew exceedingly sad. His sadness thus arose not from himself but from those whom he had taken with him. It must be realized that the Son of man brought with him none but those whom he showed that he would come into his kingdom at that time when, in the presence of Moses and Elijah on the mountain, he was surrounded by all the splendor of his eternal glory. But the reason for bringing them with him both then and now was the same. It was to show that he would come into his kingdom at that time when, in the presence of Moses and Elijah on the mountain, he was surrounded by all the splendor of his eternal glory. But the reason for bringing them with him both then and now was the same. ON MATTHEW 31.4. 12

26:38 Remain and Watch with Me
THE PROCESS OF DEATH IS FEARED. HILARY OF POITIERS: Then he said, “My soul is sad, even to death.” Did he say, My soul is sad because of death? Certainly not. For if death were the reason for his fear, he certainly ought to have said so. But the reason for his fear lies elsewhere. Actually we have no indication, since the reason for what begins in another person may differ from what it is at the end. He had just said before, “You will all fall away this night because of me.” He knew that they would be frightened, that they would run away and deny knowing him. And since blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgiven neither here nor in eternity, he feared they might deny that he is God, once they looked upon him beaten and spat upon and crucified. This was the reason that prompted Peter, who, in betraying Christ, denied him in this way: “I do not know the man,” for anything said against the Son of man will be forgiven. Christ is therefore sad even to death. So it is not death itself but the process of death that is feared, for after his death the faith of the believers would be strengthened by the power of the resurrection. ON MATTHEW 31.5. 15

KEEP WATCH WITH ME. ORIGEN: “Stay here and keep watch with me.” It is as though Jesus had said, “Although I told the other disciples to ‘sit here while I go and pray’ but brought you three along with me, I don’t want you to come any further, for you are not yet able. So, stay here keeping watch as I keep watch, knowing that the others were commanded to sit over there because they are weaker and need to be protected from this agony. [But] I have brought you who are stronger with me to labor with me in watching and praying. Nevertheless, you remain here, that each one stand firm in the state of his calling, for every grace (however great it may be) has a superior.” What Jesus meant when he said “remain here” is explained by what was said next: “going a little farther, he fell on his face.” Therefore let us remain where Jesus commanded us to remain, as the apostle also admonished: “Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.” And let us do everything in our power to keep watch with him who “neither slumbers nor sleeps, who keeps Israel.” But coming to the disciples and finding them asleep, he arouses them with a word and tells them to listen, so he may as it were say to those who are listening: “How is it that you were not able to watch with me for even one hour?”
He orders us then to be wakeful so we may keep watch and pray. Now that person watches who does good works, that person watches who diligently attends to the truth of the faith lest he be ensnared by any shady teaching. He who watches and prays in this way will have his prayer heard. This is what the Lord means when he says, “Watch and pray.” We should first watch and, while watching, we should pray. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 91. 19

MY SOUL IS VERY SORROWFUL. JEROME: What we said before about Christ’s suffering and what took place before it is also brought out in this chapter. It shows that the Lord, to test the fidelity of the human nature he had taken on, truly felt sorrowful. However, lest the suffering in his soul be overwhelming, he began to feel sorrowful over the events taking place just before his suffering. For it is one thing to feel sorrowful and another thing to begin to feel sorrowful. But he felt sorrowful, not because he feared the suffering that lay ahead and because he had scolded Peter for his timidity but because of the most unfortunate Judas and the falling away of all the apostles and the rejection by the Jewish people and the overturning of woeful Jerusalem. Jonah too became sad when the plant or ivy had withered, unwilling to have his booth disappear. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.37. 22

26:39 Let This Cup Pass from Me
IF IT BE POSSIBLE. ORIGEN: His words “if it be possible” referred not only to God’s power but also to his justice. As to God’s power, whatever is just or unjust is possible. As to his justice, which is not only powerful but also just, not everything is possible—only that which is just. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 95. 23

NOT AS I WILL, BUT AS YOU WILL. CHRYSOSTOM: By saying then, “If it be possible, let it pass from me,” he showed his true humanity. But by saying, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as you will,” he showed his virtue and self-command. This too teaches us, even when nature pulls us back, to follow God. In order to make clear that he is truly God and truly human, words alone would not suffice. Deeds were needed. So he joined deeds with words in order that even those who have been highly contentious may believe that he both became man and died. Admittedly some still do not believe that this was so. But many more would have been unable to have believed if his face had not been seen at Gethsemane. See in how many ways he shows the reality of the incarnation. He demonstrates both by what he speaks and by what he suffers. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.1. 24

LET THIS CUP PASS. LEO THE GREAT: The disciples were admonished, and the Lord beseeches the Father that they might confront the force of the present temptation with watchful prayer: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will.” The first petition arises from weakness, the second from strength: He desired the former based on our nature and chose the latter based on his own. Equal to the Father, the Son knew that all things were possible to God; rather, he descended into this world to take up the cross against his will so that he might suffer through this conflict of emotions with a disquieted mind. But in order to show the distinction between the receiving nature and the received nature, what was proper of humanity desired divine intervention and what was proper of God looked upon the human situation. The lower will yielded to the higher will, and this demonstrated what the fearful person may pray for and what the divine healer should not grant. “For we do not know how to pray as we ought,” and it is good for us that what we want, for the most part, is not granted. God, who is good and just, shows mercy toward us by denying us those things we ask for which are harmful. SERMON 43.2. 26

26:40-43 Stay Awake and Pray
HE FOUND THEM SLEEPING. ORIGEN: But notice that after the first prayer “he came to the disciples and found them sleeping.” Likewise after the second prayer “he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy.” On this, I believe they were the eyes not so much of their bodies as of their souls. Besides, he had not yet removed the heaviness from their eyes, “because he was not yet glorified.” And just as “the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified,” so too the heaviness had not yet been removed from their eyes “because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Therefore he does not rebuke them, but “leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.” He also teaches us through those “same words,” that we may not grow faint in prayer but persist in the very words of our prayer until we obtain those things we have begun to pray for. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 95. 27

PRAY THAT YOU MAY NOT ENTER INTO TEMPTATION. HILARY OF POITIERS: After that, he returns to the disciples and finds them sleeping. He asks Peter why he could not watch with him one hour—Peter, indeed, was one of the three, for he had boasted in front of the others that he would not fall away. And he indicates the cause of his greater fear, saying, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” He wanted then to prevent temptation (so he included in his prayer the words “lead us not into temptation”), lest anything in us cater to the weakness of the flesh. He also makes it clear why he urged them to pray in order to avoid temptation, saying, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” These words did not apply to himself but were aimed at them. For that matter, how is it that now his spirit is willing, whereas before his soul was sad even to death? At any rate, he orders them to watch and pray lest they give in to temptation and succumb to the weakness of the body. He therefore prays that, if possible, the cup may pass from himself, for when it comes to drinking from it, all flesh is weak. ON MATTHEW 31.9. 31

THE FLESH IS WEAK. JEROME: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.” It is impossible for the human soul to avoid temptation. Hence we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Lead us not into temptation,” which we are unable to withstand. We do not refuse to face temptation entirely but pray for the strength to bear up under it. Therefore he does not say, “Watch and pray that you may not be tempted” but “that you may not enter into temptation,” that is, that temptation may not overwhelm you and hold you in its grip. For example, a martyr who has shed blood by professing faith in the Lord was certainly tempted but was not ensnared in the net of temptation. One who denies the faith, however, has fallen into the snares of temptation.
“The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” This is aimed at those rash people who think that whatever they believe, they can obtain. Therefore, as much as we trust in the ardor of our spirit, so too should we fear the weakness of the flesh. And yet, according to the apostle, the works of the flesh are mortified by the Spirit. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.41. 33

WATCH AND PRAY. ORIGEN: As long as Jesus was present, his disciples did not sleep. After he had walked away a short distance, they were unable to watch for even one hour in his absence. For this reason we should pray that Jesus will not leave us for even a short while but will fulfill what he promised when he said to us, “And I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.” In this way will we keep watch as he banishes sleep from our souls, to make it possible for us to fulfill his command: “Do not give sleep to your eyes or slumber to your eyelids, that you may escape as a doe from the nets and a bird from the snare of the fowlers.” But coming to the disciples and finding them asleep, he arouses them with a word and tells them to listen, so he may as it were say to those who are listening: “How is it that you were not able to watch with me for even one hour?”
He orders us then to be wakeful so we may keep watch and pray. Now that person watches who does good works, that person watches who diligently attends to the truth of the faith lest he be ensnared by any shady teaching. He who watches and prays in this way will have his prayer heard. This is what the Lord means when he says, “Watch and pray.” We should first watch and, while watching, we should pray. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 93. 36

THEIR EYES WERE HEAVY. HILARY OF POITIERS: The fact that, after returning and finding them asleep, he first reproves them, secondly is silent and thirdly orders them to rest, can be explained in this way: First, after the resurrection, he scolded them for scattering and for being apprehensive and restless; second, once the Holy Spirit had been sent, he came and found them sleeping, since their eyes were too heavy for them to discern the freedom of the gospel—having been held back by the love of the law for some time, their faith was still sleeping; and third, with the return of his radiance, he restored them to restfulness and peace of mind. ON MATTHEW 31.11. 38

26:44 Thy Will Be Done
COULD YOU NOT WATCH WITH ME ONE HOUR? CHRYSOSTOM: After that he returns and says to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour?” They all were sleeping. He admonishes Peter. He is hinting at him in what he said, especially in the words “with me.” They are not employed without reason. It is as though he had said, “So you are the one who is ready to lay down your life for me, and you could not watch with me for one hour!” What follows also suggests the same admonition: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.” He is again instructing them not to be self-confident but contrite in mind, to be humble and to refer everything to God. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.1. 41

PRAY THAT YOU NOT ENTER INTO TEMPTATION. CHRYSOSTOM: And at one time we find him addressing them all together and at another time Peter. He says, “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you.” Then he says to all in common, “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.” He is in every way encouraging them to be resolute and strong in these convictions. Then, that he might not seem to make his language altogether condemnatory, he says, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” For no matter how much you might wish to despise death, you will not be able to do so until God extends his hand. For the carnal mind draws you down.
And again he prayed in the same way, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” It is clear here that his human will is in full harmony with God’s will. This harmony is what we must always seek after and follow. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.1. 46

26:45-46 My Betrayer Is at Hand
TAKE YOUR REST. ORIGEN: Then, undoubtedly after the third prayer, he came to the disciples. But the sleep he now orders them to sleep is not that which, as is written, came upon the disciples twice before. For at first “he found them sleeping” but not at rest, and “again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy.” But now he orders them not simply to sleep but to take their rest. Indeed, there is a big difference between the sleep implied in Christ’s second command to “sleep now and take your rest” and the sleep that is against his will after he orders them to “remain here and watch one hour with me.” There was nothing contradictory between his words “watch with me” and later, “Sleep on and take your rest.” He simply kept a certain order, so that first indeed we should watch and pray that we do not enter into temptation, and then we should sleep and take our rest according to Christ’s command. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 96. 47

BETRAYED INTO THE HANDS OF SINNERS. CHRYSOSTOM: Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” All this belongs to the divine economy. “Into the hands of sinners” is said to make it clear that he was not liable to any charge but that this course of events was due to human wickedness. Finally he says, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” By all these means he was teaching them that this course of events was not something that happens of necessity, without human willing or out of human weakness. It is all unfolding, without denying freedom, as God’s own secret dispensation. Even though he foreknew that Judas would come, so far was he from fleeing, he even went to meet him. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.1-2. 48

THE HOUR IS AT HAND. ORIGEN: “Look! The hour is approaching, and the Son of man will be delivered up into the hands of sinners.” It is also in view of this hour, I believe, that he said to his mother, “My hour has not yet come.” And now he declares that with the hour approaching, “the Son of man will be delivered up into the hands of sinners.” Would that only into the hands of those sinners had Jesus been delivered up! But now I believe that he is delivered up always “into the hands of sinners” when they who seem to believe in Jesus have him in their hands since they are sinners. Indeed, as often as a righteous person indwelt by Jesus has fallen under the sway of sinners, Jesus is delivered up “into the hands of sinners.”
“Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is approaching.” After he has awakened them from that sleep we spoke about, he says to his disciples, “Rise, let us be going.” And seeing Judas in his mind, who was approaching him to deliver him up and who was not yet seen by his disciples, he says, “See, the one who will deliver me up is approaching.” I believe, however, that “see, he is approaching” and “see, the one who will deliver me up is approaching” are not equivalent. Furthermore, the traitor, who had separated himself from Jesus by his sins and his betrayal was not simply “approaching” Jesus, but “he is approaching” to deliver up the Son of God, whom he already betrayed. Plainly, all wrongdoers first betray Jesus; then they deliver him up. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 97-98. 51

OVERVIEW: Those who gathered at Jesus’ betrayal with clubs in hand did so because they thought that he could disappear from their midst (ORIGEN), which indeed he could have done; nevertheless Jesus submitted quietly to his betrayers. By contrast the betrayers were enraged, especially Judas (CHRYSOSTOM). Accepting the kiss of betrayal, Jesus grants power to his adversaries (HILARY OF POITIERS). All adversaries of truth betray God’s Word in the same way that Judas betrayed Jesus (ORIGEN).
The disciple severed the slave’s ear because it was closed to truth in the first place (HILARY OF POITIERS). Jesus commands that the sword be sheathed in order that he remain true to his commitment to God’s will (ORIGEN, CHRYSOSTOM). The disciples’ possession of swords symbolizes Jesus’ betrayal. In spite of swords and clubs on both sides, Jesus was not forced to submit to his adversaries; he willingly submitted to them according to the Scriptures. The disciples, however, fled because they realized that Jesus would not attempt to escape (CHRYSOSTOM). Origen suggests they fled because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

26:47 Judas and a Large Crowd
A GREAT CROWD WITH CLUBS. ORIGEN: Someone may question why “a great crowd” gathered “with swords and clubs” against him. According to John, this large crowd consisted of a band of soldiers and officers sent by the chief priests. And someone may say that because of the multitude of believers from the people, so many came against him lest a large crowd of believers snatch him out of their hands. But I think there may be another reason why the crowd had gathered against him. Those who believed that he exorcised devils in the name of Beelzebub thought that out of a kind of black magic he could escape from the midst of those who wanted to take hold of him. And perhaps some of them had heard that once when he was to be thrown down from a mountaintop he escaped from the hands of those who were holding him, not by simple human flight but by some preternatural force. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 99. 2

26:48-49 Judas Had Given a Sign
THEY SEIZED HIM. CHRYSOSTOM: For having shown his own strength, at once he yielded himself. But the other Evangelist says that even at that very moment he continued to reprove him, saying, “Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” Are you not ashamed even of the form of your betrayal? Nonetheless he submitted to be kissed and did not even resist this shameless act. He gave himself up willingly. They laid their hands on him. They seized him that night on which they ate the Passover. To such a degree did they boil with rage and madness. They, however, would have had no strength against him unless he had permitted it. Yet this did not deliver Judas from unspeakable punishment. He even more exceedingly condemns himself by the manner of his betrayal, by the Lord’s meekness and leniency and gentleness. He became fiercer than any wild beast. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.2. 4

BROKEN TRUST. JEROME: It was shameless indeed and a sign of broken trust to call him master and to plant a kiss on the one he betrayed. But Judas still has something of the modesty of a disciple, for he does not deliver up Christ to his persecutors openly but with the sign of a kiss. This is the mark which God put on Cain lest anyone who came upon him should kill him. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.49. 6

THE BETRAYER KISSED HIM. CHRYSOSTOM: How fitting are the instruments of the priests! They came against him “with swords and clubs.” Judas himself was with them, one of the Twelve. In the interest of fair disclosure the Evangelist still calls him “one of the Twelve,” unashamedly. “Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him.’ ” O with what depravity had the traitor’s soul been inflamed! With what kind of eyes did he then look at his Master? With what mouth did he kiss him? O accursed purpose! What sign did he devise? What did he dare? What sort of clue of betrayal did he give? Whoever I kiss! He was emboldened by his Master’s gentleness. Yet it by itself was sufficient to shame him. The kiss deprived him of all excuse, for he was betraying one incomparably meek.
But why does he say [“Seize the one I kiss”?] Often when Jesus had been under attack and possible seizure, he had gone out from the crowd, through the middle of it, without their even knowing it. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 83.2. 9

JUDAS KISSED HIM. HILARY OF POITIERS: There is a certain order to the different facets of Christ’s suffering. But the reason for Judas’s kiss was that we might discern all our enemies and those who we know would delight in raging against us. The Lord does not resist his kiss. ON MATTHEW 32.2. 10

26:50-51 Jesus Arrested
AUTHORIZING HIS BETRAYAL. HILARY OF POITIERS: As to what he tells Judas, “Do what you have to do,” he authorizes his own betrayal by that very statement. For he who had it within his power to call upon twelve thousand legions of angels against his betrayers would have found it so much easier to oppose the plans and artifices of one man. At length he says to Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you.” He thus gives power against himself when he says, “Do what you have to do.” In other words, because the crime of what is willed is counterbalanced by what is perpetuated, Judas would accomplish in deed what he had already done in his will. ON MATTHEW 32.2. 13

WHY ARE YOU HERE? ORIGEN: But I think that all betrayers of the truth, pretending to love the truth and using the sign of a kiss as a mark of affection, betray the Word of God. Cloaked in belligerence, brandishing clubs and the swords of battle and proffering insults, his enemies desire to take hold of him. And the traitor says to Jesus, “Master.” Indeed, all heretics, like Judas, address Jesus in the same way, “Master.” They kiss him even as Judas did. Jesus speaks peacefully to them all, since they are all Judases who betray him: “Judas, is it with a kiss that you betray the Son of man?” As for Judas, he is reproached by Christ for his false friendship. “Friend, why are you here?” We hear of no one who is good called by that name in the Scriptures. Moreover, to the wicked and the one not wearing a wedding garment he says, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” Wicked too is that man in the parable of the denarius who hears the words, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go. I choose to give to this last as I give to you.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 100. 16

HEARING WITH THE LEFT EAR. ORIGEN: Perhaps what Peter did was a mystery, for the right ear of the Jewish people had to be cut off because of their malice toward Jesus. Though they seem to hear the law, they now hear with their left ear the shadowy tradition of the law but not the truth, since they are enslaved by words that profess the service of God but do not serve him in truth. The mystery of these words against Christ is found in the person of Christ’s adversary, the high priest Caiaphas. Now it seems to me, since all the Gentile believers were made one people in Christ, the very fact that they believed in Christ was the reason why the right ear of the Jews was cut off, according to what had been prophesied about them: “Make the ears of this people heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears . . . and turn and be healed.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 101. 19

CUTTING OFF HIS EAR. HILARY OF POITIERS: The apostle cuts off the ear of the slave of the high priest; that is, a disciple of Christ cuts off a disobedient ear from a man in the priesthood. What was once incapable of hearing the truth is now cut off. ON MATTHEW 32.2. 20

26:52-54 How Would the Scriptures Be Fulfilled?
PUT YOUR SWORD AWAY. ORIGEN: He said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its place” (which is one of patience). After restoring the amputated ear, as the other Evangelist says (which was a sign of both supreme kindness and divine power), he spoke these words that they might ring true to what he had said and done before. Although they might not remember the good things done in the past, they might acknowledge the good things done in the present. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 103. 22

THE SERVANT OF THE HIGH PRIEST. CHRYSOSTOM: Who was this “one” who cut off the ear? John says it was Peter. For this was an act of fervor.
Another point deserves inquiry: Why were the disciples bearing swords? That they indeed bore swords is evident from the text both here and in the other accounts. But why did Christ even permit them to have swords? For Luke affirms also that “one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear,” remembering that in Luke Jesus had said to them, “When I sent you without purse, traveling bag and shoes, did you lack anything?” And when they said, “Nothing,” he said to them, “But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag, and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” And when they said, “Here are two swords,” he said to them, “It is enough.” So why did they have swords? Because he had said to them, “Let him buy a sword.” Yet this was not meant that they should arm themselves, far from it, but to indicate that he was to be betrayed. The swords had prophetic rather than military purpose. They indicated his being forcefully seized and betrayed. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.1. 26

NO MORE OF THIS. CHRYSOSTOM: Peter is rebuked for using his sword and for his severe threat. He was resisting the servant who came indeed with hostility. He was not defending himself but doing this on behalf of his Master.
Christ however did not permit any harm to ensue. For he healed [the servant] and manifested a great miracle, enough to indicate at once both his forbearance and his power and the affection and meekness of his disciple. Peter had acted from affection. Now he acts from duty. For when he heard, “Put your sword back into its place,” he obeyed immediately. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.1. 27

PERISHING BY THE SWORD. CHRYSOSTOM: One of his followers, in another account, asked, “Lord should we strike with our swords?” But it is clear in all accounts that he rejected it and healed the man and rebuked his disciple in such a way that he might move him to acquiescence. “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Then he adds, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” By these words he quenched their anger, appealing to holy Scripture. He prayed that the disciples might accept meekly whatever befell him when they had learned that this also is occurring according to God’s will. His response is twofold: He is able to appeal to his Father, and he is able to resist the angry passions of his supposed defenders with these words: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.1. 29

26:55-56 The Disciples Fled
JESUS YIELDS VOLUNTARILY. CHRYSOSTOM: Then he also adds, “Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me.” By this he makes it clear that the seizure was of his permission. He passes over the miracles and mentions only his teaching, that he might not seem to boast. When I taught, you did not seize me. Why now, when I hold my peace, do you come against me? I was in the temple every day, and no one seized me. Now you come to me late and at midnight with swords and staves! What need is there of these weapons? I have been around daily. Thus he was teaching them that unless he had voluntarily yielded, not even then would they have succeeded. Even then those who were holding him with their hands would not succeed in doing so if he were not willing. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.2. 30

THE SCRIPTURES FULFILLED. CHRYSOSTOM: After this, he solves also the difficulty of why he willed it at this time. “All this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” See how even up to the last hour and in the very act of being betrayed, he did everything he did seeking their amendment and healing, employing prophecy and argument and admonition. Those who take up coercion will perish by their coercion. To show that he is suffering voluntarily, he says, “I was daily with you teaching.” All this was to show his accord with his Father’s will and “that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
But why did they not lay hold on him in the temple? Because they would not have dared to do so in the temple on account of the people. This is why he continued teaching at all times and places, even to the last hour, taking away their excuse. In order to obey the prophets, he gave up even his very life. In no way did he teach contrary to the prophets.
“Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.” Up until the time he was seized, they remained. But when he had said these things to the multitudes, they fled. For from then on they could see that escape was no longer possible. So he gave himself up to them voluntarily, saying that this was done according to the Scriptures. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.2. 32

THEY FLED. ORIGEN: There is now much to choose from the prophets, such as their sayings that were fulfilled when Christ said he had to suffer these things. Moveover, it is customary for scholars to collect prophetic words that were fulfilled. And in the psalm you may find a number of things reflected in those who came with Judas to seize Jesus, even as you may find things said about Judas in that psalm. “Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.” Fearing the crowds and Judas at their head, they fled because they did not yet have the Spirit (“since Jesus had not yet been glorified”) and the “Spirit of power and love.” If they had the Spirit, they would not be weak nor would they need anything besides divine love. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 104. 35

OVERVIEW: Caiaphas, the scribes and the elders were all disreputable (ORIGEN). Peter is to be commended, however, for at least he followed Jesus rather than fleeing like the other disciples (JEROME). The council found no false witness against Jesus at first because Jesus was blameless (ORIGEN). The testimony finally presented was false because those speaking twisted what Jesus had said regarding the temple (JEROME). Caiaphas, working on behalf of the devil in more ways than one, trespasses Jesus’ previous command not to swear by commanding Jesus to swear. By contrast Jesus will sit enthroned in power at God’s right hand. The “clouds of heaven” represent the prophets and apostles of Christ (ORIGEN). What Caiaphas called blasphemy was Christ’s way of saying that he was in accordance with God’s will (CHRYSOSTOM).
Why did Caiaphas tear his robes? Caiaphas was furious because he could not find sufficient charges against Jesus (JEROME). He tore his robes in order to underscore his accusation of blasphemy (CHRYSOSTOM, LEO THE GREAT). It is customary for Jews to rend their garments when they hear blasphemy (JEROME). In so doing, Caiaphas broke the rule of high priests that they are not to tear their clothes (LEO THE GREAT).
Jesus shows great perseverance as he was persecuted (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, CHRYSOSTOM). His persecution also highlights his adversaries’ corruption (CHRYSOSTOM). He endured persecution for us and was in turn exalted by God (ORIGEN). Christ’s persecution fulfills Old Testament prophecy (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, CHRYSOSTOM, ORIGEN). Those who strike another in the church strike Christ (ORIGEN).

26:57 Jesus Led to Caiaphas the High Priest
THEY LED HIM TO CAIAPHAS. JEROME: In accordance with God’s command, Moses ordered that high priests should succeed their fathers and a line of descent should be woven among priests. Josephus relates that the disreputable Caiaphas purchased the high priesthood from Herod for one year only. No wonder, then, the dishonorable high priest judges dishonorably. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.57. 2

THE SCRIBES AND ELDERS HAD GATHERED. ORIGEN: I believe the word for Jewish slavery whereby poor and abandoned persons now profess to be slaves is “Caiaphas.” He is known as the high priest who, at odds with the truth, rails against Jesus. But Jesus according to the truth is a priest, the Word of God; under him are established all who worthily and zealously serve God the Father. Where the high priest Caiaphas is found, however, there the scribes come together, that is, learned men who preside over the perishing written word. While being scribes, they are also elders who preside not over the truth but over the classic usage of a mere word. They are unwilling to consider anything beyond that. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 105. 4

26:58 Peter Followed at a Distance
LOVE OR CURIOSITY. JEROME: Either out of a disciple’s love or out of human curiosity, Peter wanted to know what judgment the high priest would make concerning the Lord: whether he would have Christ put to death or beaten with whips. There is a difference between the eleven apostles and Peter at this point. They fled, whereas he followed the Savior from a distance. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.58. 5

26:59-62 Seeking False Testimony
THEY FOUND NO FALSE TESTIMONY. ORIGEN: From this it is clear that Jesus “committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.” His life was unimpeachable and completely blameless, leaving his enemies no opportunity for provocation. Clearly they found nothing to say against him or to insinuate by shading the truth (“the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony,” but they could find none). There is room for false testimony when it is given with a shading of the truth; however, no shading of the truth was found which could further their lies against Jesus—although there were many who wished to find favor with Caiaphas and the chief priests and the scribes and the elders and the whole council. These avidly sought that testimony. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 107. 7

DESTROY AND REBUILD THE TEMPLE. JEROME: How can they be false witnesses if they said what we read the Lord had said before? Because a false witness takes the truth and twists its meaning. The Lord had spoken of the temple of his body, but they falsely accused him with those very words. With a few things added or changed, they made it into an understandably false accusation. The Savior had said, “Destroy this temple.” They changed his words to say, “I can destroy God’s temple.” . . . But the Lord, indicating the living and breathing temple, had said, “And in three days I will raise it up.” It is one thing to build and another to raise up. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.61. 10

26:63-64 Jesus’ Silence and Answers
I ADJURE YOU BY THE LIVING GOD. ORIGEN: We find in the law several cases of swearing. And now, on this occasion, the priest commands Jesus to swear “by the living God.” In this regard, I believe it is improper for one who wants to live by the gospel to command someone to swear. Likewise, the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “But I say to you, ‘Do not swear at all’ ” and do not command someone else to swear at all. So, according to Christ’s Gospel command, if it is not permissible to swear, neither is it permissible to command someone else to swear. Therefore it is clear that the high priest unlawfully ordered Jesus to swear, even though he may have ordered him to swear “by the living God.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 110. 13

YOU HAVE SAID SO. ORIGEN: It was not fitting for our Lord to respond to the high priest’s command to swear. . . . For this reason, he neither denied that he was Christ, the Son of God, nor did he openly declare it. Instead, as though accepting to be a swearing witness . . . he replied, “You have said so.”
And since “everyone who commits sin is of the devil,” the high priest also committed a sin in plotting against Jesus. Therefore he was of the devil, and, being of the devil as it were, he imitated his very father, who doubtingly asked the Savior twice, “If you are the Son of God,” as is written concerning his temptations. Similar in fact are the words “If you are the Son of God” and “if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Someone may rightly say in this regard that to doubt whether Christ is the Son of God is the work of the devil and of the high priest who plotted against our Lord. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 110. 16

AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER. ORIGEN: It seems to me that the Son of man seated “at the right hand of Power” signifies enthronement and empowerment. He was seated therefore next to Power—the only power properly so called—and at the right hand. He received all power from the Father “in heaven and on earth.” His adversaries too will see his enthronement, sometime after the blessed have seen him with joy.
Now the passage according to Mark does not say “hereafter.” It reads simply, “You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power.” This does not imply anything contrary to what we have said. However, in light of Matthew’s words, “hereafter you will see” and Luke’s words, “so will the Son of man be in his day,” one may ask whether since the time the Savior had said these things, they were fulfilled to those who heard his words. . . . Our reply is that they appear to have been fulfilled, since from that time, that is, from the time of the dispensation, the Son of man has been seated “at the right hand of Power,” and his disciples witnessed his resurrection from the dead. For this reason, as we noted before, they saw him seated “at the right hand of Power.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 111. 21

ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN. ORIGEN: The prophets of God and the apostles of Christ are those living clouds which Jesus orders to rain down or not to rain down, as he sees fit, upon the fruitless vineyard. Now if anyone does not wish to become these clouds upon which and with which the Son of man will appear, Christ will know this. For God the Word and wisdom and truth and justice will always come upon these clouds and be with them, manifesting his coming to those worthy of himself. Furthermore, we speak of these clouds as though they bear a “sign from heaven,” heavenly clouds that do not pass away. They have been made worthy of the throne of God and the kingdom of God as “heirs of God and coheirs of Christ.” And they will reign with him. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 111. 23

26:65 He Has Blasphemed
THE HIGH PRIEST TORE HIS ROBES. JEROME: Blind anger and impatience, bereft of grounds for a false accusation, dislodged the high priest from his seat, and he displayed the rabid state of his mind with a vehement bodily gesture. The more Jesus kept silent over the false witnesses and dishonorable priests indignant at his response, all the more did the high priest, overcome with rage, provoke him to give an incriminating reply. Still Jesus kept quiet, because as God he knew that whatever he replied would be twisted into grounds for accusation. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.63. 24

BLASPHEMY. CHRYSOSTOM: Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, he has spoken blasphemy. He did this to add force to the accusation and to aggravate what he said by a symbolic action. What had been said moved the hearers to fear. They did in this case what they would later do in the case of Stephen: they stopped their ears. The high priest does the same thing.
Yet what kind of blasphemy was this? For indeed he had said before, when they were gathered together, that “the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand.” And he had interpreted the saying, and they dared to say nothing. They held their peace and from that time forward did not challenge him further. Why then did they now call the saying a blasphemy? And why did Christ now answer them? He did so to take away all their excuses. Even to the last day he taught that he was the Christ, and that he would sit at the right hand of the Father and that he would come again to judge the world. All this was the language of one manifesting his full accordance with the will of the Father. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 84.2-3. 27

THE FURY OF CAIAPHAS. JEROME: The one whom fury had lifted out of his priestly throne was impelled by that same fury to tear his garments. When Caiaphas tore his robes, he demonstrated that the Jews had lost the glory of the priesthood and that the seat of the high priest was now vacant. But it is the custom of the Jews to tear their clothes when they hear any blasphemy against God. We read that Paul and Barnabas did this when they were honored and worshiped as gods in Lycaonia. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.65. 30

RENDING GARMENTS. LEO THE GREAT: To emphasize his alarm over the words he had just heard, Caiaphas “tore his garments.” Unaware of his own madness, he deprived himself of priestly honor. Caiaphas, where does reason reside in your mind? . . . You are oblivious to the command you read concerning high priests: “Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not rend your clothes.” But you, who have now forfeited your dignity, are the very object of disgrace. And in token of the end of the old regulation, the same rending that rips your priestly attire will soon also tear apart the veil of the temple. SERMON 44.2. 32

26:66-68 He Deserves Death
THEY STRUCK HIM. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: This is clearly a reflection of the holy prophet’s words, “Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great fear,” says “the Lord,” the one true God, the king of kings and Lord of lords. He was dishonored by us: first he endured blows, and then he endured laughter from the impious, exemplifying the highest forbearance yet presented to us. How can the one who “examines heart and mind,” the one who illumines prophets, not know “who strikes you”? FRAGMENT 301. 34

THEY SPAT IN HIS FACE. CHRYSOSTOM: This is clearly a reflection of the holy prophet’s words, “Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great fear,” says “the Lord,” the one true God, the king of kings and Lord of lords. He was dishonored by us: first he endured blows, and then he endured laughter from the impious, exemplifying the highest forbearance yet presented to us. How can the one who “examines heart and mind,” the one who illumines prophets, not know “who strikes you”? THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.1. 36

THEY SLAPPED HIM. ORIGEN: It was necessary for him to teach these things by example, “giving his back to whips and his cheeks to fists” and not turning his face away “from insults and spitting.” Thus would he, by suffering these things in our place, deliver us (as I believe) who were worthy to suffer all that disgrace. Truly he did not “die for us” that we might not die but that we might not die for ourselves. And he was spat upon and beaten for us, so that we who were worthy of all these things because of our sins might not just suffer them but, suffering them for the sake of justice, we might gratefully accept them. Paul makes it clear that the Savior “humbled himself becoming obedient all the way to death, even to the death of the cross.” . . . “On account of all this, God exalted him.” God not only exalted him because of the death he underwent for our sake but also because of the buffeting and the spitting and all the rest.
Christ did not turn his face away “from insult and spitting,” so his face might be glorified more than the face of Moses—with so much glory that comparatively the glorification of Moses’ face was outshone, even as the light of a lamp is outshone by that of the sun and even as knowledge, which knows in part, is outshone “when that which is perfect has come.” But they also buffeted the holy head of the church. Because of this, they will be beaten by Satan, not that they may not be extolled or may have their power brought to an end but that, once in the hands of the enemy and punisher, they may receive just punishment for the sin they committed in buffeting Jesus.
Not content with spitting in his face and buffeting him, they even struck his face with the palms of their hands, and, mocking him, they said, “Prophesy to us, O Christ! who is it that struck you?” On account of this . . . they have been struck and punished. Yet they were unwilling to accept any discipline, as Jeremiah had prophesied about them: “You chastened them and they did not grieve; they were unwilling to receive correction.” And now whoever harms anyone in the church and does these things to him spits on the very face of Christ, and, buffeting Christ, they slap him with the palms of their hands. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 113. 45

OVERVIEW: In spite of his zeal, Peter denied Jesus out of fear. Matthew and Mark differ on the exact time the cock crows; however, there is no real discrepancy (CHRYSOSTOM). Peter not only denied Jesus’ humanity, he denied Jesus’ divinity as well (JEROME). One may excuse Peter because the Holy Spirit was not given before Peter’s denial. All the while Peter was inside Caiaphas’s courtyard, he was unusually influenced by false teachings and was under the influence of darkness. The accusers also represent adverse forces to acknowledgment of truth (ORIGEN).

26:69-75 Peter Remembered and Wept Bitterly
I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN. CHRYSOSTOM: Oh strange and wonderful acts! When indeed he saw his master seized, Peter was so fervent as both to draw his sword and to cut off the man’s ear! But when it was natural for him to be more indignant and to be inflamed and to burn, hearing such revilings, then he became a denier. For who would not have been inflamed to indignation by the things that were then done? Yet the great disciple, overcome by fears, so far from showing indignation, even denies and cannot even stand the threat of a tiny and lowly servant girl.
This happens not only once but a second and third time. He denies the Lord. In a short period and even before judges, he denies him. For it was “when he went out to the porch” that they asked him whether he was the man who “was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And he was not even aware of his own lying. Luke says that Christ looked upon him, and this made it clear that he had denied him and was not even aware of how far he had fallen into forgetfulness. This happened even though the cock had crowed. He needed a further remembrance from his Master. Jesus’ look was greater than any voice. Peter was so full of fear. Mark says that when he had once denied the Lord, then first the cock crowed, but then it did so for a second time and a third time. He shows us more particularly the weakness of the disciple, that he was utterly dead with fear. Mark had learned these things from the eyewitnesses, for he himself was a follower of Peter. One marvels at Mark in that, so far from hiding his teacher’s faults, he declared them more distinctly than the rest. On this very account he was a true disciple.
Why does Matthew affirm that “Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times,’ ” while Mark declares after the third denial that “the cock crew the second time”? Both are in harmony. At each crowing the cock is inclined to crow both a third and a fourth time. Mark showed that not even the sound of the rooster checked him and brought him to recollection. So that both things are true. For before the cock had finished the one crowing, Peter had denied a third time. And not even when reminded of his sin by Christ did he dare to weep openly, lest he should be betrayed by his tears. Then “he went out and wept bitterly.” THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.1-2. 4

PETER DENIED CHRIST WITH AN OATH. JEROME: “And again he denied it with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ ” I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was “I do not know the man, because I know God.” The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny him, then the Lord lied in saying, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Notice what he says: “You will deny me”—not “the man.”
“Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation . . . but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.
“Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.” In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by his very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him. It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.72-75. 7

YOU WERE ONE OF THEM. ORIGEN: Upon examining Peter’s denial, we note that “as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at the time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he to be criticized for not professing belief in him, since it is said to those who profess belief: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” We . . . since the Spirit of the Father has the power to speak in us and since it is in our power to “make room” in us for the Holy Spirit and not “for the devil,” if we should deny Christ, we would have no excuse.
It may be that whoever is in the courtyard of Caiaphas “the high priest” cannot admit knowing the Lord Jesus unless he has gone outside his courtyard and has been brought outside of every teaching contrary to Jesus and outside of Jewish traditions handed down, not according to the Spirit of the Scriptures but according to the “commands and teachings of men.” Consider how Peter, seated outside at a distance from Jesus and in the high priest’s courtyard, denied Jesus before them all; and again, for the second time, going out to the porch and wishing to leave but not yet outside the gateway, he denied the Lord. Then, for the third time, “while the bystanders came and said, ‘Certainly you are also one of them,’ ” when “he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear ‘I do not know the man,’ ” he was not yet outside. Furthermore, all the denials were made at night and in the darkness, before the break of dawn and the sign of the new day, that is, the crowing of the cock that bestirs the early risers. And if, by way of hypothesis, Peter had denied after the crowing of the cock, as was said, “The night is far gone, the day is at hand . . . let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day,” he would have had no excuse for his actions.
Perhaps all people when they deny Jesus . . . seemingly deny him before the crowing of the cock, when the sun of justice has not yet risen for them and its rising is not yet at hand. But if upon the rising of the sun for the soul “we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 114. 15

THE ACCUSERS. ORIGEN: I believe that the first servant girl who caused Christ’s disciples to deny him stands for the synagogue of the Jews “according to the flesh,” who have frequently coerced the faithful to deny him. The second maidservant stands for the assembly of Gentiles, who also in persecuting Christians has forced them to deny the Lord. And third were the bystanders in the courtyard, who are ministers of the different heresies and who also compel others to deny the truth of Christ. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 114. 16

OVERVIEW: Out of this day would emerge the overthrow of the temple and its altars, the surpassing of the Law and the Prophets, the undoing of the kingship and priesthood. Due to their persistent shouts, Pilate chose to pardon a man who was a murderer and demanded the crucifixion of the Savior of the world (LEO THE GREAT). They bound him with chains, but these fetters would be broken (ORIGEN, JEROME). The religious leaders make clear their complicity and guilt by buying the piece of land for burial (CHRYSOSTOM). The potter is the one who brought us to life with his own hands and who is refashioning us to glory through Christ. Christ’s blood purchased the field of the potter for us, travelers in this world (MAXIMUS OF TURIN). Having betrayed innocent blood, Judas hanged himself—a disgraceful death (CHRYSOSTOM). Although Judas repented his sin, he could not change its consequence (ORIGEN, JEROME).

27:1-2 The Religious Leaders Confer
WHEN MORNING CAME. LEO THE GREAT: O religious leaders [of the Jews], this morning was far from your time of ascendency, as it might have seemed to you. Your sun was in fact beginning to set. The dawn you expected did not come. A night of blackest darkness was brooding over your spiteful hearts. Out of this morning would come the overthrow of the temple and its altars, the surpassing of the law and the prophets, the undoing of the kingship and priesthood, turning youth to continual lament. For you set out that morning on a mad and bloody course. You offered up to die the Author of life, the Lord of glory. Pilate—that terror-stricken judge—was overcome by your shouts, so that he chose a man for pardon who was a murderer and demanded the crucifixion of the Savior of the world. SERMON 41.5. 2

BREAKING FETTERS. ORIGEN: Anyone who demands from me a scriptural text concerning the breaking of those fetters with which the chief priests and elders bound Jesus should understand that it was on account of this very event that Jesus said through the prophet, “Let us break their bonds.” It was just as though Jesus had said this of the chief priests and elders, or even more so of those rulers who operated through them and of the kings of the world who “set themselves,” and of those rulers who “take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed,” who also said, “let us cast their cords from us.”
Our inquirer will be satisfied still more with scriptural demonstration that Jesus broke the chains of those who “took counsel” against him and led him away, bound, if he understands the meaning of what was written concerning Samson, who also broke the fetters of those foreigners who bound him, for he was a Nazirite of God and had power in his uncut head of hair. If therefore he whose power came from the hair on his head was able to break the chains of the oppressors who bound him, how much more will Christ decisively break those chains binding him, who, after performing great signs and miracles, freely delivered himself to be bound (the power of his divine nature lay dormant and still, allowing him to be captured). Samson’s bonds were but a type of Christ’s. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 115. 6

THEY BOUND HIM. JEROME: The Lord was led not only to Pilate but also to Herod so that he could be mocked by both. Notice the solicitude with which the priests carried out their evil doing; they remained vigilant throughout the night in preparation for committing murder. “And they delivered him bound to Pilate.” It was their customary practice to bind a man who had been condemned to death and to hand him over to his judge. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.1-2. 7

27:3-5 Judas Hangs Himself
I HAVE SINNED IN BETRAYING INNOCENT BLOOD. CHRYSOSTOM: This was a charge both against him and against these others. Against Judas, not because he repented but because he did so late and slowly and became self-condemned. For that he gave himself up, he himself confessed. And it was a charge against the others, in that having the power to reverse the verdict, they did not repent. But observe when it is that Judas feels remorse. When his sin was completed and had been fully accomplished. The devil is like this. He does not permit those that are inattentive to see the evil in due time, lest they might repent. At least when Jesus was saying so many things, Judas was not influenced. But when his offense was completed, then repentance came upon him. And then it was too late to be profitable. For to condemn it and to throw down the pieces of silver and not to regard the Jewish people were all acceptable things. But to hang himself, this again was unpardonable and a work of an evil spirit. For the devil led him out of his repentance too soon, so that he should reap no fruit from it, and carried him off by a most disgraceful death, and one manifest to all, having persuaded him to destroy himself. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.2. 8

HE BROUGHT BACK THE SILVER. JEROME: The weight of Judas’s impiety overshadowed the magnitude of his avarice. Seeing the Lord condemned to death, he brought the money to the priests as if it were in his power to change the sentence of Christ’s persecutors. Although he would change his mind eventually, he could not change the consequence of his first decision. Yet if he sins who betrays innocent blood, how much more do they sin who purchase innocent blood and provoke a disciple by offering a reward for his apostasy. Those who deny the apostle’s free will and attempt instead to explain Judas’s betrayal by attributing to him an evil nature will need also to explain how a person of evil nature can repent. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.4. 10

HE REPENTED. ORIGEN: Let us see whether or not, by the grace of God, we can explain the meaning of the following verse, which still remains hidden to many: “When Judas his betrayer saw him condemned, he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests” and so on.
If this were written after Jesus had been sentenced by Pilate, scourged and delivered to the Jews for crucifixion, we would not need to inquire any further into the meaning of the report that “Judas . . . saw him condemned” because we know that Judas was a party to those events.
But how is it that Judas saw Jesus condemned before Jesus had either been sentenced or interrogated by Pilate? Some perhaps will answer that Judas was anticipating in his mind the final result of Jesus having been handed over by the chief priests and elders of the people, which he did witness. Others, however, will say that one whom Judas “saw condemned” was not Jesus but Judas himself. According to this account, when the chief priests and elders of the people handed Jesus over to Pilate, Judas then realized the evil he had done and understood that such an audacious act was already under the judgment and condemnation of God. Perhaps also Satan, who had entered Judas after the dipping of the morsel of bread, remained present in him until Jesus was delivered to Pilate but “departed from him” after he finished accomplishing Satan’s will. Judas then sensed the devil’s departure and at once saw and understood that “betraying righteous blood” is condemned by God, which he was able to understand only after the devil had ceased working in him. Only then, free from Satan’s influence, was Judas capable of penitence by returning the thirty pieces of silver to those who had paid him. When the devil had left him, he could then say what he had not been able to say earlier, for when his heart was still full of Satan he was unable to confess, “I have sinned in betraying righteous blood.” We are not saying, however, that the devil ceases to prey upon anyone whom he may have left. Rather, he waits and watches for an opportune moment to apply himself again. Even after his victim has sinned and come to recognize the devil’s influence, he still waits and watches for yet a third opportunity to deceive. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 117. 14

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN REMAIN. JEROME: It profits nothing to do an act of penance which is incapable of correcting the sin. If a man sins against his brother in such a way that the wrong he committed can be amended, it is possible for him to be forgiven. If the consequences of his sin remain in force, however, in vain does he attempt to do penance. The psalmist applies this truth to our most miserable Judas when he says, “Let his prayer be counted as sin.” Not only was Judas unable to repair the damage of his sinful betrayal, but he even continued to compound the evil of that initial crime by committing suicide. Of such things the apostle speaks in his second epistle to the Corinthians: “Let not a brother be overwhelmed by greater sorrow.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.5. 17

27:6-8 Buying a Field with Blood Money
NOT LAWFUL TO PUT INTO THE TREASURY. CHRYSOSTOM: If they had put the blood money into the treasury, their deed might have remained relatively more hidden. But the religious leaders make clear their guilt to all subsequent generations by buying the piece of land for burial. They thereby unconsciously declare their guilt.
So do not imagine that someone might do a good work through murder and use the reward for some supposed good purpose. Such alms are satanic. Such reasoning is twisted. Do not be naive about this. There are still many who imagine that they are permitted to violently take countless things that belong to others. Then they make an excuse for their violence if they give some ten or a hundred gold pieces to charity. Of these the prophet has said, “You have covered my altar with tears.” Christ is not willing to be fed by covetousness. He does not accept these gifts. It is better to leave people to pine with hunger than to feed them from these polluted sources. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.3. 19

PROOF OF TREASON. CHRYSOSTOM: Once again they are self-condemned by their own conscience. Don’t you see this? They knew that they had been paying straightaway for a murder. They even bought a field for the burial of strangers. They did not even put the silver into a treasury. So this directness itself became a witness against them and a proof of their treason. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.3. 20

TO BURY STRANGERS. ORIGEN: Because the quality of resting places for the dead varies (for many are buried in their ancestral tombs which were secured by a pledge, but those who suffer misfortune are often buried in the graves of the homeless), those who received payment in exchange for the blood of Jesus used it to acquire a potter’s field for the purpose of having a place in which to bury those foreigners who could not supply a pledge to secure a proper tomb. If it is suitable to interpret these foreigners typologically, we can consider those persons to be foreigners who remained strangers to God until the end and alien to his covenants. Vagabonds such as these meet their end buried in a potter’s field acquired with blood money. The righteous are able to say, “We are buried with Christ in a new tomb cut from the rock in which no dead body had yet been laid,” but those foreigners who remain finally estranged from Christ and alien to God will have to say, “We are buried with strangers in the field which is called the ‘Field of Blood.’ ” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 117. 21

THEY TOOK COUNSEL. CHRYSOSTOM: They did not make these decisions randomly but took counsel together. This indicates that no one is innocent of the deed. All are guilty. So it is in cases of conspiracy. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.3. 22

THE FIELD OF BLOOD. CHRYSOSTOM: Even the very name of the place proclaims more sharply than a trumpet their guilt of murder. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.3. 23

27:9-10 Fulfilling Jeremiah’s Prophecy
SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET. CHRYSOSTOM: All these things had been foretold from ancient times by prophecy. It was not the apostles alone but the prophets who were also declaring these events precisely as they occurred. Don’t you see how they foresaw in every way the suffering of Christ? How they knew of its chastisement beforehand? THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.3. 24

ON THE SOURCE OF MATTHEW’S QUOTATION. JEROME: This prophecy does not come from Jeremiah but from a similar passage in Zechariah, who is almost the last of the twelve prophets. Although the meaning does not differ much, Zechariah’s word order and vocabulary do conflict with Matthew’s quotation.
In a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures given to me by a member of the Nazarene sect, I recently read an apocryphal edition of the book of Jeremiah in which this quotation from Matthew appeared word for word. Nevertheless it still seems more likely to me that Matthew took this prophecy from Zechariah, since it was the ordinary practice of the Evangelists and apostles to communicate only the meaning of texts from the Old Testament while neglecting to observe their word order. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.10. 27

THE POTTER’S FIELD. MAXIMUS OF TURIN: This field then is this entire world, in which we who have been dispersed and scattered bear the fruit of good work for the Lord.
Yet perhaps you would inquire of me, if the field is the world, who the potter might be who could have the ownership of the world. Unless I am mistaken, the potter is the one who made the vessels of our body from clay. Scripture says of him, “Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust from the earth.” The potter is the one who, with the warmth of his own breath, made alive the slimy clay of our flesh and with fiery heat put together the fluid and earthly matter of our bodies.
The potter, I say, is the one who fashioned us unto life with his own hands and who is refashioning us unto glory through his Christ. The apostle says, “We are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another.” That is to say, we who from our previous condition have broken to pieces because of our own misdeeds are restored in a second birth through the loving kindness of this same potter. We who have been struck by death because of Adam’s transgression rise anew through the grace of the Savior. Clearly this potter is the one of whom the blessed apostle says, “Will what is molded say to its molder?” And again, “Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?” For from the same clay of our body God preserves some persons for the kingdom on account of their individual merits and keeps others for punishment.
The field of this potter, then, was bought with Christ’s blood for travelers. For travelers, I say, who were without home or country and were cast about as exiles throughout the earth, rest is provided by the blood of Christ, so that those who have no possession in the world might have a burial place in Christ. Who do we say that these travelers are if not very devout Christians who, renouncing the world and possessing nothing in the world, rest in the blood of Christ? For the Christian who does not possess the world utterly possesses the Savior. Christ’s burial place then is promised to travelers so that the one who preserves himself from fleshly vices like a traveler and stranger may merit Christ’s rest. For what is Christ’s burial place if not the Christian’s rest? We therefore are travelers, in this world, and we sojourn in this life as passersby, as the apostle says: “While we are in this body we are away from the Lord.” We are travelers, I say, and a burial place has been bought for us at the price of the Savior’s blood. “We have been buried with him,” the apostle says, “through baptism in his death.” Baptism therefore is Christ’s burial place for us, in which we die to sins, are buried to evil deeds and are restored to a renewed infancy, the conscience of the old person having been dissolved in us for the sake of another birth. SERMONS 59.3-4. 33

OVERVIEW: Jesus appears before Pilate in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Jesus’ response to Pilate’s question about kingship was one of humility (ORIGEN). Jesus, and later the apostles, is charged with political disloyalty. Jesus’ accusers wanted some charge against him worthy of the death penalty. While Jesus remains silent to their accusations, he does confess to being a heavenly king (CHRYSOSTOM). His silence is not avowal to the charge; rather, he despises it by not refuting it. One who needs no defense does well to keep silent (MAXIMUS OF TURIN). The Word of God remains silent to them (ORIGEN).

27:11-12 Jesus Questioned
JESUS BEFORE PILATE. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: They led Jesus to Pilate. And they handed him over to the Roman soldiers. Thus the things announced beforehand by the holy prophets were fulfilled to them. For it says, “Woe to the lawless man. Evil will be his lot according to his works.” Just “as you have done, so shall it be done to you. Your retribution will be paid back upon your own head.” FRAGMENT 302. 3

PILATE’S QUESTION. ORIGEN: Truly Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” and not once but often humbled himself on behalf of humanity. See now, “having been made judge of every creature” by the Father, the King of kings and Lord of lords, to what extent he humbled himself. He compliantly stood before the governor of the land of Judea, who asked him perhaps deridingly or doubtingly, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus thought this question was proper, and he replied, “It is as you say.” Before that, having been adjured by the chief priest to say whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, he answered, “You have said it yourself.” Notice the two questions. The first one, “If you are the Christ the Son of God,” was germane to Christ as a Jew. The Roman governor did not state his question by saying, “Are you the Christ?” but rather, “Are you the king of the Jews?” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 118. 7

ARE YOU THE KING OF THE JEWS? CHRYSOSTOM: Do you see what he is asked first? Is this the same charge that they had been continually bringing forward in every circumstance? They could see that Pilate was not ready to take into account subtle matters of Jewish law. So they directed their accusation outwardly to state charges of political disloyalty. They did the same later with the apostles, always charging them with political motivations, always bringing forward some trumped-up idea that they were after worldly power. They were treating Jesus now as if he were a mere man and as if he were under suspicion of treason. . . . What they were really interested in was finding some charge that would put him to death. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.1. 9

YOU HAVE SAID SO. CHRYSOSTOM: What does Christ answer to Pilate’s question? “You have said so.” He confessed that he was [indeed] a king, but a heavenly king. This would be made clearer elsewhere when he replied more specifically to Pilate, “My kingship is not of this world.” He gives a reason that cannot be doubted: “If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over.” There was, of course, no excuse for even making such accusations, either from the governor or priests. For in order to refute this suspicion he paid a tax and taught others to pay it. And when others wanted to make him a king, he fled. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.1. 14

RESPONSE TO PILATE’S QUESTION. HILARY OF POITIERS: To Pilate’s question as to whether he was king of the Jews, he answered, “It is as you say.” How different was the statement he had made to the priest! When the latter asked him whether he was the Christ, he said, “You have said it yourself.” This answer is given to the priest as though pertaining to the past, for in many places the law had foretold the coming of the Christ. ON MATTHEW 32.7. 16

NO REPLY TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS. CHRYSOSTOM: So why then did he not defend himself reasonably by recalling these acts when he was under accusation of being a usurper of power? Because his acts themselves proved his meekness and gentleness and spiritual power. They were beyond number. The judicial process was corrupt, and his accusers were willfully blind and dealt unfairly. So he chose to reply to nothing. He held his peace. He answered briefly to the authorities so as not to appear arrogant from continuing silence. But he did not say anything in reply to these false accusations. He knew he was not likely to persuade them. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.1. 17

27:13-14 Pilate Amazed
HIS SILENCE. MAXIMUS OF TURIN: It might seem remarkable to you, brothers, that the Lord should be accused by the chief priests before the procurator Pilate and should be silent and that he should not refute their wickedness by his response, since indeed a defense which follows quickly is the only way to refute a persistent accusation. It might seem remarkable, I say, brothers, that the Savior should be accused and should remain silent. Silence is occasionally understood as avowal, for when a person does not wish to respond to what is asked of him he appears to confirm what is raised against him. Does the Lord then confirm his accusation by not speaking? Clearly he does not confirm his accusation by not speaking; rather he despises it by not refuting it. For one who needs no defense does well to keep silent, but let one who fears to be overcome defend himself and one who is afraid of being vanquished hasten to speak. When Christ is condemned, however, he also overcomes, and when he is judged he also vanquishes, as the prophet says: “that you should be justified in your words and should vanquish when you are judged.” Why was it necessary for him therefore to speak before being judged, when for him judgment was a complete victory? SERMONS 57.1. 19

HE WAS ACCUSED. ORIGEN: The ministers and elders of western Jewish literature, who are the sons of those chief priests and elders who accused Jesus, still today adopt and repeat these same allegations against him. On this account, since the sins of their forebears go before them and remain in them, their works suffer “[God’s] wrath forever,” and they are forsaken along with their entire people “like a tent in the vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field and like a city besieged.”
Just as Jesus “gave no answer” then, neither does he give an answer now to the accusations of the Jewish priests and elders. The Word of God remains silent toward them. Still today they turn a deaf ear to the Word of God, as they previously did to the prophets and to him at the consummation of the ages when he “was made flesh and dwelt among us.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 119. 24

OVERVIEW: The practice of releasing a prisoner was due to leniency until conviction. Barabas, whom they released, represents opposition to Christ within anyone who does evil (ORIGEN, HILARY OF POITIERS). He was a known murderer and therefore a great contrast to Jesus, whose guilt was disputed. Pilate’s wife suffered over convicting Jesus in a dream sent by God, perhaps in order to persuade Pilate not to convict him (CHRYSOSTOM). In spite of her dream, Jesus was convicted out of jealousy. The people followed the Jewish leaders in calling for the release of Barabbas (ORIGEN), although it seems that Pilate thought they might choose the release of Jesus out of shame and generosity (CHRYSOSTOM). Both Pilate and the people are guilty of condemning Jesus (LEO THE GREAT, CHRYSOSTOM). Jerome suggests that Pilate puts the blame on the people. Christ is the ultimate victor, however, or he was proven innocent even in his conviction (MAXIMUS OF TURIN). Jesus did not condemn the people; rather, he received those among them and their children who repented (CHRYSOSTOM). He endured whipping so that others would not be whipped (JEROME, APOLLINARIS).

27:15-17 Whom Do You Want?
ANY ONE PRISONER. ORIGEN: You should not be surprised that shortly after Roman rule had begun [in Palestine], the Jews who came under their yoke were granted the priviledge of asking for [the release of] “one [prisoner] whom they wanted,” even though he appeared to be guilty of a thousand murders; the pagan nations granted a certain amount of leniency to their subjects until the yoke had been firmly secured around them. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 120. 1

DISSENSION OR PEACE. ORIGEN: I believe that these events reveal something of a mystery. Barabbas represents the one who enacts dissension, war and murder in human souls, but Jesus is the Son of God who works peace, reason, wisdom and everything good. When the two of them were bound humanly and bodily, the people requested that Barabbas be released. Because of this act, they suffer continual dissention, murder and robbery. Such things afflict the pagans from without but the Jews, who do not believe in Jesus, from within their very souls. Where Jesus is absent, there is dissention and strife and war. Where Jesus is present, however, in such a way that the people can say “if Christ is in us, although the body is dead on account of sin, the spirit is alive on account of righteousness,” there is everything good: spiritual riches beyond measure and peace, for “he is our peace who has made us both one.” Anything contrary to this should be recognized as the mark of Barabbas struggling to be set free from his bondage within human souls, that is, not only in the historically sinful Israel, considered according to the flesh, but in all who teach like it and live like it. Within everyone who does evil, then, Barabbas is set free and Christ is bound. Within everyone who does good, however, Christ is set free and Barabbas is bound. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 121. 4

BARABBAS OR JESUS? CHRYSOSTOM: Note how far Pilate goes to give the crowd a chance to relieve themselves from blame. Observe how they did not leave themselves so much as a shadow of an excuse. Here was their choice: Let an acknowledged criminal go free, or free one whose guilt was still disputed. If they should choose to let the known offender go free, would it not be even more fitting to allow the innocent to go free? For surely Jesus did not seem to them morally worse than acknowledged murderers. But they instead chose a robber. This was not just any robber but one who was infamous for wickedness in many murders. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 5

27:18-19 I Have Suffered in a Dream
THE DREAM OF PILATE’S WIFE. CHRYSOSTOM: This dream was no small event. It should have been enough to stop them in their tracks when viewed in relation to the other proofs seen in other things that occurred. Why didn’t the dream come to Pilate? Perhaps she was more worthy. Or perhaps because, even if he had seen it, he would not have equally believed or perhaps would not have even mentioned it. So it was providentially arranged that the wife should see it, in order that it might become more commonly known. And note that she does not only behold the dream but also suffers from it. One might imagine that Pilate might have been made more reluctant to participate in this murder, even from a feeling of sympathy toward his wife. The time of the dream also is significant, for it happened on that very night. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.1. 6

SHE SUFFERED IN A DREAM. ORIGEN: Jesus was delivered up out of jealousy, and plainly out of jealousy. Even Pilate could not ignore it. Furthermore, the Evangelist did not overlook the matter of divine providence regarding the praise of God, who desired to convert Pilate’s wife in a dream. The woman took it upon herself to prevent her husband from passing sentence against Jesus. But Matthew did not explain the dream. All he said was that she had “suffered many things in a dream” because of Jesus. Therefore she “suffered in a dream” and did not suffer beyond that, so we may say that Pilate’s wife was fortunate. She “suffered many things in a dream” because of Jesus and she received “in a dream” what she would suffer. Hence you may say it is better for someone to receive bad things in a dream than to receive them in life. Who indeed would not choose to receive bad things “in a dream” [rather than receive them] in life [unless one deserved such things, and it were better to receive bitter things in life than to receive minor troubles in a dream]? He finds comfort indeed and peaceful repose “in the bosom of Abraham” who receives bad things in his life (and not those bad things which he receives in his dreams), and because of them he will also be consoled. As to whether he will also have the beginning of conversion to God for having “suffered many things in a dream” because of Jesus, God only knows. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 122. 8

27:20-23 Let Him Be Crucified
WHICH OF THE TWO? ORIGEN: It is evident how the elders and the mentors of Jewish worship have stirred up the Jewish people and incited them against Jesus, that they might destroy him and have Barabbas released. For the crowds put their belief in their leaders and priests. For his part, the procurator addressed the people and said to them, “Which of the two do you wish that I release to you?” The crowd—a truly sizable crowd walking, as it were, on the “broad path that leads to destruction”—sought and kept crying out to have Barabbas released to them. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 123. 10

THE NAME BARABBAS. HILARY OF POITIERS: When Pilate offered to release Jesus, following the customary practice wherein the people were granted the privilege of gaining the freedom of one prisoner per solemn feast day, they were persuaded by their priests to choose Barabbas instead. Here already the mystery of their future infidelity is contained in Barabbas’s very name, which means “son of the father.” They preferred this “son of the father” to Christ. At the instigation of their leaders, they chose the Antichrist, a man of sin and son of the devil. They chose the one elected for damnation over the author of life. ON MATTHEW 33.2. 12

WHAT SHALL I DO WITH JESUS? CHRYSOSTOM: Since the crowd asked for the other, Pilate said, “What shall I do then with the Christ?” In this way he was trying to make them embarrassed, by giving them the power to choose, that at least out of shame they might release him and their generosity could be expressed. It made them contentious to hear it said that he had done no wrong. Yet they were being given an opportunity to save him out of humanity. Surely this is an offer whose plausibility cannot be disputed. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 13

27:24 See to It Yourselves
PILATE’S ACQUIESCENCE. LEO THE GREAT: By what law is it, my Jewish friends, that what is unlawful to do is lawful to desire? By what standard is it that what defiles the body does not taint the heart? You fear to be contaminated by the shedding of his blood that you would take upon yourselves and your children. Since your wickedness will not commit so great a crime, allow the procurator to pass judgment. But, prevailing upon him impetuously, you do not allow him to swerve from that goal you deceitfully abstain from.
Pilate sinned by doing what he did not want to do. He acquiesced in your judgment, doing whatever your rage wrought by force. Such was your observance of the law that you eschewed placing into the treasury the money which the seller of Christ returned to you, wary lest the blood money pollute the sacred coffers. Whose heart is guilty of this pretense? The conscience of the priests accepts what the money box does not receive. Thus with untold shades of deceit you cover yourselves, and a deal is made with the traitor. SERMON 44.3. 14

HE WASHED HIS HANDS. CHRYSOSTOM: Why then did Pilate allow him to be sacrificed? Why didn’t he rescue him, like the centurion had rescued Paul? For that man too was aware that he could have pleased the Jews and that a sedition may have taken place and a riot; nevertheless he stood firm against all these. But not so Pilate. He was extremely cowardly and weak. He joined in their corruption. He did not stand firm against the bullying crowd or against the Jewish leadership. In every way he allowed them an excuse. For they “cried out exceedingly,” that is, cried out the more, “Let him be crucified.” For they desired not only to put him to death but also that it should be on a trumped-up charge of iniquity. And even though the judge was contradicting them, they continued to cry out against him. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 16

INNOCENT OF THIS MAN’S BLOOD. MAXIMUS OF TURIN: For Christ conquers when he is judged, because in this way he is proven innocent. Hence Pilate says, “I am innocent of the blood of this just man.” It is a better case which is not defended and still is proved. It is a fuller righteousness that is not supplemented by words but is still supported by the truth. It must be that the tongue should keep silent when justice itself is present to itself. Let the human tongue keep silent in a good affair, inasmuch as it has also been accustomed to speak out in favor of bad causes. I do not want righteousness to be defended in the same manner that wickedness is usually excused. It is not by reason of speech but because of virtue that Christ vanquishes, for the Savior, who is wisdom, knows how to vanquish by keeping silent and how to overcome by not responding. Therefore he prefers to establish the truth of his case rather than to speak about it. What in fact would compel him to speak when silence is enough to conquer? But perhaps fear would compel him, lest he lose his life. Yet this was precisely the reason for his victory. He lost his own life in order to gain life for all; he preferred to be conquered in himself in order to be the victor in everyone. SERMONS 57.1. 17

A CHANCE TO DO RIGHT. CHRYSOSTOM: Do you see how many things Christ did in order to give them a chance to do right? Do you remember how many times he had checked Judas? So likewise did he restrain these men too, both throughout all his ministry and at the very time of his condemnation. For surely when they saw the governor and judge washing his hands of it, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” they should have been moved to compassion both by what was said and by what was done. The same is true when they saw Judas had hanged himself as when they saw Pilate himself offering them the choice of another in the place of Christ. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 18

BLAMING THE PLAINTIFFS. JEROME: Pilate accepted the water in line with that prophetic saying, “I will wash my hands among the innocent,” that he might cleanse the works of the Gentiles by the washing of his hands and in some way separate us from the wickedness of the Jews who cried out “Crucify him!” What he intimated was this: I truly wanted to release an innocent man, but a riot is breaking out and the charge of treason against Caesar has been brought against me. So “I am innocent of the blood of this just man.”
The judge who was induced to pass judgment against the Lord does not condemn the defendant but puts the blame on the plaintiffs. He declares him to be a just man who was meant to be crucified. “See to it yourselves,” he says. “I am the administrator of the laws. It is according to your word that his blood is being shed.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.24. 20

27:25 On Us and on Our Children
ALL THE PEOPLE ANSWERED. CHRYSOSTOM: Look how high the contrary evidence is piling up. The accuser and traitor condemns himself. The judge who sentences tries to absolve himself of guilt. The dream of warning comes that very night. Even at the point of his condemnation Jesus is evidently innocent. What kind of plea will his murderers have? Even if they were not willing to let him be acknowledged as innocent, at least they should not have preferred a robber to him, and especially a notorious robber, known to be such. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 21

AND ON OUR CHILDREN. CHRYSOSTOM: What then did they do? When they saw the judge washing his hands and saying, “I am innocent,” they cried out, “His blood be on us and on our children.” They were rendering a sentence against themselves. He was yielding himself up that all should be done.
Note how great is their madness. For passion and evil desire work on us like this. They did not permit anyone to see anything of what was right. They not only curse themselves, they draw down the curse upon their own children as well. They acted with unutterable madness. They acted both against themselves and against their children!
Yet this lover of humanity did not hold their own sentence against them. He did not confirm it upon their children or even upon them. Rather he received both from them and from their children those who repented. He counted them worthy of good things beyond number. Think of who might have been among them! Even Paul perhaps. Even some among the thousands that believed in Jerusalem, for it is said, “You see, brothers, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed.” And if some continued in their sin, to themselves let them impute their punishment. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 23

27:26 Pilate Hands Over Jesus to Be Crucified
THEY SCOURGED JESUS. CHRYSOSTOM: Why did Pilate have Jesus whipped? Either as one presumably condemned, or to please the crowd, or as if he were willing to give their judgment some sort of standard legal expression. And yet he ought to have resisted them. For indeed even before this he had said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” There were many reasons that Pilate and the others might have held back: the signs and the miracles, the great patience of the one who was suffering these things, and above all his benign silence. For since both by his defense of himself and by his prayers, he had shown his humanity, again he now shows his glory and the greatness of his nature, both by his silence and by his indifference to what they said. This might have led them to marvel. But neither Pilate nor the crowd takes sufficient note of these evidences. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 86.2. 25

HE RELEASED BARABBAS. JEROME: Barabbas the robber, who had provoked a riot among the crowds and committed murder, was released to the Jewish people. . . . Now Jesus, having been delivered up by the Jews, was absolved of guilt by Pilate’s wife and was called a just man by the governor himself. Moreover, the centurion declared that he was truly the Son of God. The learned reader may be hard pressed to explain the fact that Pilate washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just man,” and later handed over the scourged Jesus to be crucified. It is important to realize that Jesus was dealt with according to Roman law, which decreed that whoever is to be crucified must first be beaten with whips. Thus Jesus was handed over to the soldiers for scourging, and their whips did their work on that most sacred body and that bosom which held God. This came about so that, in keeping with the words “many cords of sins” and with the whipping of Jesus, we might be free from scourging. As holy Scripture says to the just man: “The whip did not draw near to your tabernacle.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.24. 30

THEY STRUCK HIM. APOLLINARIS: The floggings [are] for the sins of the world, because the sinner is flogged many times, according to the prophecy that says, “I gave my back to the whips.” And so is fulfilled [the saying] that the righteous [will give himself] for sinners. The height of goodness is also fulfilled when “the righteous [suffered] for the unrighteous,” so that “by his wounds we might be healed,” as Isaiah says. FRAGMENT 138. 34

OVERVIEW: Christ is adored even while he is mocked (HILARY OF POITIERS). He bears shame that was due to us (APOLLINARIS). Each of Jesus’ vestments has spiritual significance (HILARY OF POITIERS, APOLLINARIS, ORIGEN, CHROMATIUS). Simon of Cyrene, an outsider who carried Jesus’ cross, represents the spread of faith to the Gentiles (LEO THE GREAT). To another, Simon represents compulsory service due for our salvation (ORIGEN). For yet another, Simon participates in Christ’s great triumph over death by bearing the ultimate emblem of victory, the cross (CHROMATIUS).
In contrast to Adam, who tasted the sweetness of the apple but experienced the bitterness of death, Christ tasted the bitterness of gall but experienced the sweetness of life over death (CHROMATIUS). Gall also contrasts with the wine Jesus drank with his disciples at the Last Supper. Jesus’ garments are the words of Scripture. Those who shook their heads as they passed by blasphemed Jesus but are as transient as heresies (ORIGEN). Christ suffered for all persons (CHRYSOSTOM). He did not come down from the cross so that he might destroy the devil (JEROME). Neither was he willing to save himself by some extraordinary act (ORIGEN).

27:27-31 Beaten and Mocked
THEY MOCKED HIM. HILARY OF POITIERS: The beaten Lord is dressed in a scarlet robe, a purple cloak and a crown of thorns, and a reed is placed on his right hand. Bending their knees before him, they mock him. Having taken upon himself all the infirmities of our bodies, he is covered with the scarlet blood of all the martyrs destined to reign with him, and he is cloaked with the high honor of the prophets and patriarchs in purple cloth. He is also crowned with thorns, that is, with the former sins of the remorseful Gentiles, so that glory might derive from the destructive and useless things, plaited on his divine head, which they contrive. The sharp points of the thorns aptly pertain to the sins from which a crown of victory is woven for Christ. The reed symbolizes the emptiness and weakness of all those Gentiles, which is held firm in his grasp. His head, moreover, is struck. As I believe, not much harm was done to his head from being struck with the reed; however, the typical explanation for this is that the bodily weakness of the Gentiles that was previously held in Christ’s hand finds comfort now in God the Father, for he is the head. But amid all this, while Christ is mocked, he is being adored. ON MATTHEW 33.3. 2

STRIPPED OF THE ROBE. APOLLINARIS: It was not as though those men had the power [to do these deeds]. Rather, it seemed good to God that these events occur for the redemption of humanity. The “Lord of glory” was treated shamefully for us because of the dishonor due to us. He is now glorified while the day of the righteous is always mocked by the ignorant. Since the cloak was tinged with the color of blood, those murdering him dressed him with it, though they did not realize the significance of what they were doing. Instead, they clothed Jesus . . . in scarlet cloth and bound his hand with the symbol of one of the sons of Tamar and Judah. The cloak itself [represents] the blood shed by the world and by the people in it. The Savior was put to death for the salvation of all. But they who are choked by “worries, wealth and pleasure” have received the word of God but have not borne fruit. They weave thorns together and crown Jesus with them, dishonoring him. . . . Those who deemed his kingdom to be of little value placed a reed in his right hand. FRAGMENT 139. 5

THE SCARLET ROBE. ORIGEN: That scarlet robe was prefigured by the scarlet sign mentioned in Joshua the son of Nun, which Rahab used for her safety, and mentioned in Genesis, which was placed on the hand of one of Tamar’s newborn sons in token of the future Passion of Christ. So now, in taking up the “scarlet robe,” he took upon himself the blood of the world, and in that thorny “crown” plaited on his head he took upon himself the thorns of our sins. As to the robe, it is written that “they stripped him of the scarlet robe.” But as to the crown of thorns, the Evangelists mention nothing further. Apparently they wanted us to determine what happened to that crown of thorns placed on his head and never removed. My belief is that the crown of thorns disappeared from the head of Jesus, so that our former thorns no longer exist now that Jesus has removed them from us once and for all on his own distinguished head. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 125. 9

THE REED. ORIGEN: What can be said about the reed they placed “in his right hand”? Here is my explanation: The reed embodied the hollow and fragile scepter that we all were leaning on before we saw it was a bad scepter, for we were trusting in the reed-shaped rod of Egypt or Babylon or some other kingdom opposed to God’s kingdom. Then he took that reed and rod of the fragile kingdom from our hands, to subdue it and break it to pieces on the cross. In place of that reed we once were leaning on, he gave us the scepter of the heavenly kingdom and the rod mentioned in Scripture: “The rod of justice, the rod of your kingdom.” He also gave us a staff that we might celebrate the paschal feast (as Scripture says, “Let your staff be in your hand”), laying down that reed-shaped rod we once had before we celebrated the Lord’s paschal feast.
Then they took this fragile, hollow reed and struck the honorable head of Jesus with it, for that ever-adverse kingdom reviles and scourges God the Father, the head of the Lord and Savior. And amid all this, the only-begotten goodness itself was unharmed, nor did he suffer anything, “being made a curse for us,” since by nature he is a blessing. But since he is a blessing, he destroyed and took away and dispelled all human malediction. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 125. 15

THE MYSTERY OF HIS KINGSHIP. CHROMATIUS: These things were done to mock Jesus. But now we know these things happened through a heavenly mystery. Wickedness was at work among the former; among the latter, the mystery of faith and the light of truth. In the purple tunic Christ is dressed as king; and in the scarlet robe, as prince of martyrs, he is resplendent as precious scarlet in his sacred blood. He receives the crown as conqueror, for crowns are usually bestowed upon conquerors. He is adored as God by people on bended knees. Therefore he is vested in purple as king, in scarlet as prince of martyrs; he is crowned as conqueror, is hailed as Lord and is adored as God.
We can recognize in the purple cloak also the church, married to Christ the king and resplendent with regal glory. Hence it is called by John in the Revelation a “royal nation.” As to this purple cloth, we read in the Song of Solomon: “His whole bed is purple.” For Christ rests on that bed where he is able to find purple cloth, that is, royal faith and a beautiful spirit. . . .
The crown of thorns which the Lord received on his head stands for our community, which came to faith from the Gentiles. At one time we were thorns—that is to say, sinners. Believing now in Christ, we have become a crown of righteousness, for we no longer cause pain or harm to the Savior. Rather, we surround his head with our profession of faith while we praise the Father in the Son, because the head of Christ is God, as the apostle says. This is the crown foretold by David in a psalm: “You placed a crown of precious stones on his head.” We were thorns at one time, but after we were included in the crown of Christ, we became precious stones. For he, who raised up children of Abraham from stones, made precious stones out of thorns.
This scriptural passage did not consider of trivial importance the fact that a reed was placed in the Lord’s right hand. Note what David says about Christ in the psalm: “My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.” As he was about to suffer, therefore, he took up the reed in his right hand, so that with a heavenly notation he might pardon us our misdeeds or inscribe his law in our hearts with divine letters. As he says through the prophet: “I will put my law within them.” . . . We may also infer other things about the reed, for it has many spiritual meanings. A reed that is hollow and without pith connotes the Gentile people, who were once without the pith of God’s law, empty of faith and devoid of grace. Therefore this type of reed, that is, the Gentile people, is put in the Lord’s right hand, for his left hand already contained the Jewish people who were persecuting him. TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 19.1-4. 23

27:32 Simon Compelled to Carry the Cross
A MAN OF CYRENE. LEO THE GREAT: But as the multitudes went with Jesus to the place of punishment, a certain Simon of Cyrene was found on whom to lay the wood of the cross, instead of the Lord. Even this act signified that faith would come to the Gentiles, to whom the cross of Christ was not to be shame but glory. It was not accidental therefore but symbolic and mystical, that while the Jewish rulers were raging against Christ, a foreigner was found to share his sufferings. Thus the apostle would say, “If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.”
Note that it was not a Hebrew or an Israelite but a foreigner who was drawn into service for the Savior in his most holy humiliation. Thus by this transference the propitiation of the spotless Lamb and the fulfillment of all mysteries passed from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, from the sons according to the flesh to the sons according to the spirit. Hence the apostle would say, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” He offered himself to the Father as a new and true sacrifice of reconciliation. He was slain not in the temple, whose worship was now at an end, and not within the confines of the city which for its sin was doomed to be destroyed, but beyond the walls of the city, “outside the gate.” Thus with the cessation of the old symbolic victims, a new victim was being placed on a new altar. The cross of Christ was to become the altar not of the temple but of the world. SERMON 46.5. 28

THE GOVERNMENT UPON HIS SHOULDERS. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: The Savior is led to the suffering that brings salvation. They laid his cross on Simeon of Cyrene. Another of the holy Evangelists said that Jesus himself carried the cross. Now surely both [accounts] are correct. For the Savior carried the cross, and, having met the Cyrene about half way, they transferred the cross to him. It is said about him through the voice of Isaiah that “a child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, and the government shall be upon his shoulders.” Now the cross has become the means by which he governs, through which he continues to rule over all heaven, since it is true that even as “far as death” he has become “obedient, even to death of a cross. Therefore God has exalted him.” FRAGMENT 306. 32

SIMON OF CYRENE. ORIGEN: “As they went out, they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; they compelled this man to carry the cross” of Christ. It was fitting not only for the Savior to take up his cross but also for us to carry it, doing compulsory service for our salvation. Furthermore, we did not benefit by taking up his cross then as much as we benefit by it now, since he takes it upon himself and carries it. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 126. 33

COMPELLED TO CARRY THE CROSS. CHROMATIUS: Finally, the Gospel reports in the present reading that as the Lord was being led to his Passion, “they found a certain man of Cyrene named Simon and compelled him to carry the cross.” The cross of Christ is the triumph of virtue and a trophy of victory. How blessed is Simon, who deserved to be the first to bear so great a sign of victory! He was compelled to carry the cross before the Lord because the Lord wanted to demonstrate his cross to be a singular grace of that heavenly mystery which is himself: God and man, Logos and flesh, Son of God and Son of man. He was crucified as man but triumphed as God in the mystery of the cross. His suffering was of the flesh, but his glorious victory was divine. Through his cross, Christ defeated both death and the devil. Through the cross, Christ mounted his chariot of victory and chose the four Evangelists, as though horses for his chariot, to announce so great a victory to all the world. Simon of Cyrene therefore was carrying the instrument of this great triumph in his arms. He was a partaker of the Passion of Christ so that he might be a partaker of his resurrection, as the apostle teaches: “If we die with him, we will also live with him. If we endure with him, we will also reign with him.” Similarly the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “He who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 19.5. 36

27:33-34 When They Came to Golgotha
WINE MINGLED WITH GALL.CHROMATIUS: When they had come to Golgotha, the Gospel says, “They gave him vinegar mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he refused to drink.” This event was foretold by David when he wrote, “They gave me gall for food, and they gave me vinegar to slake my thirst.” Take note of the mystery revealed here. Long ago, Adam tasted the sweetness of the apple and obtained the bitterness of death for the whole human race. In contrast to this, the Lord tasted the bitterness of gall and obtained our restoration from death’s sting to the sweetness of life. He took on himself the bitterness of gall in order to extinguish in us the bitterness of death. He received acrid vinegar into himself but poured out for us the precious wine of his blood. He suffered evil and returned good. He accepted death and gave life. The location of his death is also not without significance, for it is reported that the body of Adam is buried in that very ground. Christ was crucified there where Adam was buried, that life might arise where death once entered. Death comes through Adam, but life comes through Christ, who deigned to be crucified and to die so that by the wood of the cross he might erase the sin of the tree and by the mystery of his own death he might cancel the punishment of our death. TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 19.7. 39

THE WINE NOT WITH GALL CONTRASTED. ORIGEN: Just as it sufficed for the Lord only to taste “vinegar mixed with gall,” so also was it sufficient for our benefit that he only taste death, which lasted no longer than three days. The other wine, however, which was not “mixed with gall” or with anything else, he took and drank, and “when he had given thanks,” he gave it to his disciples, promising that he would drink it “anew in the kingdom of God.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 127. 43

27:35-38 Jesus Crucified
THEY CAST LOTS FOR HIS GARMENTS. ORIGEN: There are those who to this day do not have the Lord with them but do have his “garments”—namely, the words contained in Scripture. They do not have them in full but only in part. Nonetheless the prophet had spoken that prediction which was now fulfilled. Now, as to whether any of his clothes were torn apart when they divided his garments or whether any of them remained intact and just what those items were, nothing is said by the first three Evangelists. But in John we read that “when the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it but cast lots for it.’ ” Therefore not all but only one of the soldiers who had cast lots received it. Now anyone debating the differences between those who have the Lord’s “garments” will doubtless find some people who, although they do not have the Lord in their teachings, do have the “tunic” that was “woven from top to bottom.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 128. 47

WHY THE ROBE WAS NOT DIVIDED. HILARY OF POITIERS: That they distributed his clothes by casting lots for them rather than by cutting them up signifies the eternal incorruptibility of Christ’s body. The life and salvation of all things was hung from the tree of life with a thief on his left and a thief on his right. This demonstrates that the entire human race is called to the mystery of the Lord’s suffering. ON MATTHEW 23.4-5. 48

THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. ORIGEN: “Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed,” and all literature—whether Greek, Roman or Hebrew—gives evidence of his kingdom. And in place of a crown, “over his head” is written “This is Jesus king of the Jews.” There is no other reason for his death (nor was there) than that he was the “king of the Jews.” He spoke about this when he said, “I have been made king by him on Zion, his holy mountain.” And while the chief priest, in keeping with the letter of the law, wore on his head a type of sign with a petal bearing the inscription “the holiness of the Lord,” the true chief priest and king—Jesus on the cross—has a sign that reads “This is the king of the Jews.” Rising up to the Father and receiving him in himself, he has for his inscription and title the Father of renown and has the Father as his crown. He has been made worthy of him as a house worthy of God the Father, and he alone can fully possess the Father. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 130. 52

27:39-40 Come Down from the Cross
THEY SHOOK THEIR HEADS. ORIGEN: No one standing still or directly approaching him blasphemes Jesus. “Those who passed by blasphemed him,” and those who stayed behind plucked food from the vineyard wall demolished by God. Concerning this it is written, “Why then have you broken down its walls, so that those who pass along the way pluck its fruit?” Therefore, as long as one does not pass along the way or avoid it and can say to God while standing, “You have set ‘my feet upon a rock,’ ” one does not blaspheme Jesus. But if one should fall or pass by or cross over or turn away, one blasphemes God. Likewise, those who have fallen into evil works and those who have abandoned the “everlasting statutes” and the way of the heavenly church “are tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.”
Now, if anyone should say that all heresies are “passing along” and turning away, that one will not be wrong. For this reason also those are held to be “passing along” and blaspheming Jesus who do not keep their head steady but are “wagging” it up and down. For they are not wise, nor do they have their eyes in their head where they belong, as we read in Ecclesiastes: “The wise man has his eyes in his head.” Therefore those who pass by and turn away have need to blaspheme Jesus the Son of God, for “no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus be cursed.’ ”
There are various forms of blasphemy. One of them is uttered by those who do not understand or hear what is being said or acknowledge what is true. Now Jesus had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But those who were passing along, like “false witnesses” against Jesus, related what he had not said, attacking him: “Aha, you who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself.” The truth is, he will not destroy the temple, but what others destroy he will build, whether it be the “temple of his body,” which the Jews delivered up to death, or the temple of his witnesses and all those who had God’s word in them and who, because of the snares of the wicked, died out of love for God (for “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live”). And they lied not only when they said, “You who would destroy the temple,” but also when they said, “And I will build it in three days.” For he did not say that he would build the temple but raise it up. The verb build does not designate a sudden action, but “raise up” does. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 132. 63

THEY DERIDED HIM. CHRYSOSTOM: O cross most abominable, most execrable! Did not God rescue the prophets from their dangers? Did God not save the righteous? Why not him? What could equal this folly? The coming of dangers upon the prophets and saints did not injure their honor before God. But what happened to this incomparable person? By what he said and what he did he offended all our expectations to the utmost. He was forever correcting beforehand our assumptions about him. Even when all these ignominies were said and done, they could not prevail, even at that time. The thief who had lived depraved in such great wickedness, who had spent his whole life in murders and house breakings, when these things had been said, only then confessed him. When he made mention of his kingdom, the people bewailed him. These things that were done seemed to testify the contrary in the eyes of many who knew nothing of the mystery of God’s dispensations. Jesus was weak and of no ostensible power; nevertheless truth prevailed even by the contrary evidences.
So hearing all these things, let us arm ourselves against all temptations to anger and outrage. Should you perceive in your heart a swelling of pride, seal your breast against it. Set your hopes only upon the cross. Call to mind the humbling things that were then taking place. Then you will cast out as dust all rage by the recollection of the things that were done to him. Consider his words. Consider his actions. Remember that he is Lord and you are his servant. Remember that he is suffering for you, and for you individually. You may be suffering only on your own behalf. He is suffering on behalf of all by whom he had been crucified. You may be suffering in the presence of a few. He suffers in the sight of the whole city and of the whole people of the covenant, both of strangers and those of the holy land, to all of whom he spoke merciful words.
Even his disciples forsook him. This was most distressing to him. Those who previously paid him mind suddenly deserted him. Meanwhile his enemies and foes, having captured him and put him on a cross, insulted him, reviled him, mocked him, derided him and scoffed at him. See the Jews and soldiers rejecting him from below. See how he was set between two thieves on either side, and even the thieves insulted him and upbraided him. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 87.2. 64

THE SIGN OF JONAH. CHRYSOSTOM: This is the sign which previously Jesus had promised to give them when they asked for it, saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” The sign of Jonah is Christ’s cross, death, burial and resurrection. And again, declaring in another way the efficacy of the cross, he said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he,” which has this meaning: When you have crucified me and think you have overcome me, then, above all, you shall know my power.
For after the crucifixion, the city was destroyed. The Jewish state came to an end. They lost their political order and their freedom. Meanwhile the gospel flourished. The word was spread abroad to the ends of the earth, by both sea and land. Both the inhabited earth and the desert would thereafter perpetually proclaim its power. These are the things Christ pointed to which began to occur at the very time of the crucifixion. For indeed it was much more marvelous that these things should be accomplished when he was nailed to the cross than when he was walking on earth. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.1. 67

27:41-43 Let God Deliver Him Now
LET HIM COME DOWN FROM THE CROSS. JEROME: “Let him come down from the cross, and we will believe in him.” What a deceitful promise! Which is greater: to come down from the cross while still alive or to rise from the tomb while dead? He rose, and you do not believe. Therefore, even if he came down from the cross, you would not believe. Further, it seems to me that this would usher in the evil spirits. As soon as the Lord was crucified, they sensed the power of the cross and realized their own strength was broken. They were acting in this way to get him to come down from the cross. But the Lord, knowing the snares of his adversaries, remained on the cross that he may destroy the devil. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.42. 68

HE CANNOT SAVE HIMSELF. ORIGEN: “So also [as others were passing along and blaspheming him] the chief priests and the scribes” were passing along. Thwarted by his power and authority, they said to him, “He saved others; he cannot save himself.” In other words, they did not believe that he who was able to save others was much more able to save himself. They promised that they would “believe in” him as the king of Israel if they saw him “come down from the cross.” But he had no mind to do anything unworthy of himself out of revenge or to do what they considered beyond belief and extraordinary. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 132. 69

OVERVIEW: At first each thief blasphemed. But after the sun had fled, the earth shook, rocks split apart and darkness fell, one of the thieves believed in Jesus and recanted his initial denial by a subsequent confession (ORIGEN, JEROME). The light of the world held back its beams so that the Lord would not be seen hanging (JEROME). To his last breath Jesus honored God as his Father. He cried out on the cross in the voice of Scripture. He turned even their wickedness to use for our salvation (CHRYSOSTOM). Those who attribute to the lips of Christ doctrines that are alien to the truth turn the metaphor of the sponge around: they fill the sponge with vinegar, place it on a reed and drink it themselves (ORIGEN). By his own power Jesus laid down his life (CHRYSOSTOM). To cry out with a loud voice and give up the spirit, which is equivalent to committing the spirit to the hand of God, is reserved only for the saints who, like Christ himself, have prepared themselves for God through good works (ORIGEN).
The earth could not hold this dead man. Rocks were split, for the Word of God and the power of his eternal goodness rushed in, penetrating every stronghold and principality. Graves were opened, for the gates of death had been unlocked (HILARY OF POITIERS). In the Passion of the Lord the outer curtain was torn from the top, which represents the beginning of the world, to the bottom, representing the end of the world. Thus by the tearing of the curtain the mysteries that with good reason had been hidden until the coming of Christ were being disclosed (ORIGEN). Certain women had followed him, ministering to him wherever he went. They were present even amid these dangers. These women were first to express compassion toward Jesus in his death and burial. The sex that was most disparaged was first to enjoy the sight of his resurrected blessings. Even when the disciples had fled in the darkness, these women were still present (CHRYSOSTOM).

27:44 The Robbers Jeer
ONE CONVERTED. ORIGEN: It is appropriate that both thieves be understood to have blasphemed the Lord at first. Afterwards, however, one of them converted and believed because of the wonders he heard performed by the Lord and also, perhaps, because he saw miraculous changes in the heavens and the falling of an untimely darkness. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 133. 1

MOCKED IN THE SAME WAY. JEROME: Here, through a figure of speech called syllepsis, instead of only one thief, both are described as having mocked Jesus. According to Luke, however, after one thief blasphemed, the other thief confessed his faith and rebuked the first. The Gospels do not disagree with each other. At first each thief blasphemed. But after the sun had fled, the earth shook, rocks split apart and darkness fell, one of the thieves believed in Jesus and recanted his initial denial by a subsequent confession. Along with the two thieves each crowd of both the Gentiles and the Jews at first mocked the Lord. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.44. 4

27:45 Darkness on All the Land
DARKNESS FELL. ORIGEN: It is my opinion that just as the other signs which accompanied Christ’s Passion were performed only in Jerusalem, so also the darkness which covered the land until the ninth hour occurred only in Judea. For in Jerusalem alone was the veil of the temple rent asunder and the earth shook and rocks split apart and graves opened. By the power of Christ, however, darkness fell upon all the land of Judea for three hours, but the light which illumines every church of God in Christ shone upon the rest of the land. Although darkness fell upon Judea until the ninth hour, it is clear that the light shone on it again, “until the full number of Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.” The fact that darkness fell upon the land of Judea for three hours demonstrates that it was because of its sins that Judea was deprived of the light of three moments, that is, the light of God the Father, the splendor of Christ and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 134. 7

ALL THE LAND. ORIGEN: Certain believers, wishing to offer some defense of the gospel in a few brief words, have said that if no new miracle had been performed at the time of Christ’s Passion but everything happened in the normal manner, then it would also have to be believed that the eclipse of the sun occurred as usual. Since it is agreed, however, that other prodigies which happened at that time were not customary events but new and wondrous (for the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the earth shook and rocks were split apart and graves were opened and many bodies of the saints rose from the dead), it follows that neither did the eclipse of the sun happen as it normally does. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 134. 10

FROM THE SIXTH HOUR. JEROME: Those who write against the Gospels suppose that it is out of ignorance that the disciples of Christ have interpreted the eclipse of the sun (a phenomenon which usually happens at certain, established times) in accordance with the resurrection of the Lord, whereas an eclipse of the sun normally occurs only at the rising of a new moon. Now there is no doubt that at the time of the Passover the moon was full. Lest we believe that the shadow of the earth or the movement of the moon’s orb across the sun had produced a brief twilight, a duration of three hours is specified in order to preclude all other explanations. I am persuaded that this happened in fulfillment of the prophecies: “The sun will set at noon, and the light in the day will become dark over the earth,” and in another place, “The sun set when it was still the middle of the day.” And it seems quite clear to me that the light of the world (this is a greater heavenly body) had held back its beams so that neither would the Lord be seen hanging nor would the wicked blasphemers take any delight while the sun was still shining. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.45. 15

REPORT OF AN ECLIPSE. APOLLINARIS: Now a certain Phlegon, a philosopher among the Greeks, recollects this darkness as an incredible occurrence in the fourteenth [night] of the moon, when an eclipse should not have appeared . . . for eclipses occur at the time when these two stars [the sun and the moon] draw near to one another. An eclipse of the sun happens at the conjunction of the sun and the moon as it runs into its way. This is not the time of the full moon, when the sun is diametrically opposed to the moon. But the eclipse occurred as creation mourned over what had happened, signifying that the drunken behavior of the Jews was linked to a darkened mind. The sunshine of the intellect had departed from them. For if they had been considering him—for that darkness found its source in the wrathful one and was evidence of what was about to overtake the murderers. FRAGMENT 142. 17

27:46 Why Have You Forsaken Me?
THE CRY IN THE NINTH HOUR. HILARY OF POITIERS: Night following day marks a division of times. Thus is fulfilled the triad of days and nights, and the hidden mystery of God’s work is perceived with astonishment by all of creation. The cry to God in truth is the voice of a body departing, having declared the separation of the Word of God from itself. He wonders why he is being abandoned when he exclaims, “God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But he was forsaken because his humanity had to pass even through death. It must be considered carefully that he gave up the spirit with a loud cry after he drank from the sponge full of vinegar offered to him on a reed. Wine is the honor and power of immortality, but it soured through the fault of the vessel or through carelessness. Therefore, since this wine had soured in Adam, he himself accepted it and drank from the nations. The fact that it was offered to him to drink from a sponge on a reed signifies that he took from the bodies of the Gentiles the sins which had ruined eternity and transferred our sins to himself, uniting them to his immortality. ON MATTHEW 33.6. 19

WHO IS FORSAKEN? ORIGEN: Certain people, in an outward display of piety for Jesus, because they are unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken by God, believe that this saying from the cross is true only as an expression of his humility. We, however, who know that he who was “in the form of God” descended from the greatness of his stature and emptied himself, “taking the form of a servant” according to the will of the one who sent him, understand that he was indeed forsaken by the Father inasmuch as he who was the form of the invisible God and the image of the Father “took the form of a servant.” He was forsaken for people so that he might shoulder so great a work and come “even to death” and “the death of the cross,” a work which seems thoroughly shameful to most people. For it was the height of his abandonment when they crucified him and placed above his head the disdainful inscription “This is Jesus, king of the Jews.” It was the height of his abandonment when they crucified him with thieves and when “those who passed by blasphemed him and wagged their heads.” The chief priests and scribes said, “He saved others but cannot save himself.” At that time “even the thieves reviled him” on the cross. Clearly then you will be able to understand the saying “Why have you forsaken me?” when you compare the glory Christ had in the presence of the Father with the contempt he sustained on the cross, for his throne was “like the sun in the presence of God and like the moon established forever; and he was his faithful witness in heaven.” Afterwards, he also added with regard to those reasons for which he said “why have you forsaken me?” “But now you have cast off and rejected, you are full of wrath against your anointed. You have renounced the covenant of your servant, you have defiled his crown in the dust.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 135. 29

TESTIMONY FROM THE PSALM. JEROME: Jesus appropriated the beginning of the twentyfirst psalm. That which is read in the middle of the verse, “Look at me,” is superfluous. For in the Hebrew it reads, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” They are impious therefore who say that the psalm is written in the person of David or Esther or Mordecai, since the Evangelists understand that other testimony taken from the same psalm is to be applied to the Savior, as for example, “they divided my garments and cast lots for my clothing” and “they pierced my hands and my feet.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.46. 33

STILL YOU ARE MY GOD. CHRYSOSTOM: Why does he speak this way, crying out, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” That they might see that to his last breath he honors God as his Father and is no adversary of God. He spoke with the voice of Scripture, uttering a cry from the psalm. Thus even to his last hour he is found bearing witness to the sacred text. He offers this prophetic cry in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things Jesus shows how he is of one mind with the Father who had begotten him. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.1. 35

27:47-49 Will Elijah Save Him?
CALLING ELIJAH. CHRYSOSTOM: But observe here also their wantonness, intemperance and folly. They thought, it is said, that it was Elijah whom he called. Right away they gave him vinegar to drink. But another came to him and “pierced his side with a spear.” Who could be more lawless, who more brutal, than these men? How could they have carried their madness to so great a length, offering insult at last even to a dead body? But note well how he turned even their evil deeds to use for our salvation. For after the blow the fountains of our salvation gushed forth. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.1. 37

THE SPONGE FILLED WITH VINEGAR. ORIGEN: One can use the spiritual sense of this text profitably against those who write malicious things against Christ. Concerning them Isaiah says, “Woe to those who write wickedness.” (I say that they who publish such things are speaking “iniquity in the highest.”) Some will use this text with a view toward those who, constructing a narrative gathered from pagan tongues, fill the sponge not with the word that is drinkable or with the wine which “gladdens the heart” or with the water of restoration but, on the contrary, with poisonous, undrinkable, unwise vinegar. They place this sponge on the reed of their writing and (as far as they are able) seem to offer a swallow of these diatribes for Jesus to drink. Others give Jesus “to drink of wine mixed with gall,” which Jesus the Son of God does not want. Others offer him vinegar instead of wine. Others offer him “wine mixed with gall” when they, having understood the doctrine of the church, live unworthily of it. Those who attribute to the lips of Christ doctrines that are alien to the truth turn the metaphor around. They fill the sponge with vinegar, place it on a reed and drink it themselves. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 137. 43

27:50 Jesus Breathed His Last
HE GIVES UP HIS SPIRIT. ORIGEN: If giving up the spirit or (according to John) handing over the spirit were simply tantamount to dying, it would be easy to understand the passage which states “he gave up his spirit.” However, since discerning minds define death to be nothing other than the separation of the soul from the body, we can see that yielding up one’s spirit is something more than simply dying physically. It is quite something else to “cry out with a loud voice and give up the spirit” (as in Matthew) or to commit one’s spirit to the hand of God (as in Luke) or to bow one’s head and hand over his spirit (as in John). It is for all people to die, including the evil, because the soul of every person, including the unrighteous, will be separated from the body.
But to cry out with a loud voice and give up the spirit, which is equivalent to committing the spirit to the hand of God, or to bow the head and hand over the spirit is reserved only for the saints who, like Christ himself, have prepared themselves for God through good works so that when they leave this world they might with confidence commit themselves to the hand of God, or hand over their spirits.
If therefore we now understand what it means to cry out with a loud voice and thus to give up the spirit, that is, to commit oneself to the hand of God (as we have explained above in accordance with Luke’s Gospel), and if we understand what it means to bow the head and hand over the spirit, let us hasten to guard the conduct of our lives so that, upon our deaths, we also, like Jesus, might be able to cry out with a loud voice and thus to give up our spirit to the Father. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 138. 46

HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE. CHRYSOSTOM: “When Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, he yielded up the spirit.” This refers to what he had earlier said: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again,” and “I lay it down of myself.” So for this cause he cried with the voice, that it might be shown that the act is done by his own power. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.1. 48

SOULS BEING RECEIVED IN HEAVEN. APOLLINARIS: This is also the beginning of the translation of souls into the heavens. For whatever souls follow Christ are translated. Stephen made this plain when he said, “Lord Jesus Christ, receive my spirit.” Paul also writes, “It is better to depart and be with Christ.” Such was not the case with those of ancient times. It was said concerning the dead that each was handed over “to his people.” This proceeding was below, as was the detention of souls. The Lord changes the direction of the journey from below to above by means of himself. FRAGMENT 143. 52

27:51-52 The Temple Curtain Torn
THE CURTAIN TORN IN TWO. ORIGEN: Anyone who searches the Scriptures with some diligence will see that there were two curtains, an inner curtain which covered the Holy of Holies and another curtain exterior to either the tabernacle or the temple. These two curtains are figures of the holy tabernacle which the Father prepared from the beginning. Of the two curtains, one “was torn into two parts from the top all the way to the bottom.” This happened at the time when Jesus “cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit.” Thereby the divine mystery was revealed that in the Passion of the Lord our Savior the outer curtain was torn from the top, which represents the beginning of the world, to the bottom, representing the end of the world. Thus by the tearing of the curtain the mysteries were disclosed, which with good reason had been hidden until the coming of Christ. Both the outer curtain and inner curtain would have been torn if it had not been the case that we still know only “in part” and if it had not been the case that everything were already revealed to the beloved disciples of Christ who constitute his body. As it is, however, because we are being brought gradually to the knowledge of new things, only the outer curtain is “torn from top to bottom.” But “when the perfect comes” and the other things which now remain hidden are revealed, then the second curtain may also be removed. We will then see even the things which were hidden within the second curtain: the true ark of the covenant, the cherubim, the true mercy seat and the storehouse of manna in a golden bowl, and all these clearly—and even things greater than these. All of this has been revealed through the law of Moses when God said to him, “Make everything according to their forms which were shown to you on the mountain.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 138. 59

THE TEMPLE VEIL TORN. HILARY OF POITIERS: Immediately thereafter the curtain of the temple was torn. After that the people were split into factions. The glory of the curtain along with the protection of its defending angel was taken away. ON MATTHEW 33.7. 61

THE EARTH SHOOK. ORIGEN: “And the earth shook,” that is, all flesh trembled when the new word, the realities of the new covenant, the new song and all new heavenly things came upon them. This is what the prophet wrote concerning this very event: “All [namely, the disciples of Christ] who saw these things trembled and every one was afraid.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 139. 63

THE ROCKS WERE SPLIT. JEROME: The literal meaning of the great signs is undoubtedly that both heaven and earth and all things within them wished to acclaim their crucified Lord. It seems to me, however, that the trembling earth and other signs also represent a type of believers, namely, those who once were comparable to a graveyard but who, having abandoned the errors of their former ways and having softened their once stony hearts, have come to acknowledge the Creator. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.51. 64

GRAVES WERE OPENED. HILARY OF POITIERS: The earth shook. For the earth could not hold this dead man. Rocks were split, for the Word of God and the power of his eternal goodness rushed in, penetrating every stronghold and principality. Graves were opened, for the gates of death had been unlocked. And a number of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose. Dispelling the shadows of death and illuminating the darkness of hell, Christ destroyed the spoils of death itself at the resurrection of the saints, who saw him immediately. The centurion and the guards who witnessed this disturbance of the entire natural order confessed him to be the Son of God. ON MATTHEW 23.7. 65

27:53-54 Truly This Was the Son of God
COMING OUT OF THE TOMBS. APOLLINARIS: The raising up of the saints’ bodies was announcing that the death of Christ was actually the cause of life. They certainly were not made visible prior to the Lord’s resurrection, since it was necessary that the resurrection of the Savior first be made known. Then those raised through him were seen. It is plain that they have died again, having risen from the dead in order to be a sign. For it was not possible for only some of the firstborn from the dead to be raised to the life of the age to come, but the remainder [must be raised] in the same manner.
Now Luke says that the crowd passing by “beat their breasts and went away.” Thus the divine superiority did not escape the notice of the Jews, either in the Passion itself or in the obscurity of the Savior. But habitual human forgetfulness held them fast, and the deceit of the teachers led many astray. FRAGMENT 144. 67

TRULY THE SON OF GOD. JEROME: Another Gospel demonstrates more clearly the cause of the centurion’s astonishment after the shaking of the earth. It wasn’t until after he had seen Christ give up the spirit that he said, “Truly this was the Son of God,” for no one has the power to give up the spirit except he who is the Creator of souls. Here we can understand “soul” for “spirit” because the soul animates the body and makes it spiritual and because the spirit is the substance of the soul itself, as it is written: “You take away their spirits and they cease to be.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.54. 70

27:55-56 Many Women Had Followed Jesus
MANY WOMEN WERE THERE. CHRYSOSTOM: Certain women were notably present as these things occurred. They were most inclined to feel for him, to grieve over his sufferings. Note how great is their constancy. They had followed him, ministering to him wherever he went. They were present even to the time of the dangers. They had seen all these events—how he wept, how he yielded up his spirit, how the rocks were split, and all the rest. These women were first to be attentive to Jesus at his death and burial.
The sex most likely to be disparaged was first to enjoy the sight of his resurrected blessings. They most steadily showed their courage. Even when the disciples had fled in the darkness, these women were still present. Among these women was his mother. She is called Mary the mother of James. They lamented over the things that had occurred. They beat their breasts. Meanwhile the religious leaders were glorying in those very things for which the others were grieving, neither moved by pity nor checked by fear. Indeed, the things that had been done showed their great wrath. These women were there all along, to behold the darkness over the land, the split rocks, the veil of the temple torn, the shaking of the earth. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.2. 72

THE WOMEN HAD MINISTERED TO HIM. JEROME: Women attended to the food and clothing for their masters from their own possessions. This was according to Jewish custom. This practice did not proceed from Gentile law and even could have been a scandal among the Gentiles. Paul himself mentions that he was unable to continue this custom: “Can it really be said that we do not have the ability to lead the sisters around the women just as the other apostles also do?” These women waited on the Lord out of their own resources. He reaped from their physical support as they benefited from his spiritual blessing. It was not because the Lord of all creatures was out of necessity looking for food but rather that he might present a model of teaching and discipleship for them. Note carefully, though, what sort of attendants he had: Mary Magdalene from whom he cast out seven demons. Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and her own aunt, the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord. The mother of Zebedee’s sons, a woman who had sought to care for her children in the kingdom. And there were other women present. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.55. 74

WOMEN BEATIFIED. ORIGEN: Isaiah is said to have prophesied concerning these women when he wrote, “Women are coming to the spectacle, for this is not a wise people.” He calls women who had been distant and were looking upon Jesus from afar. He calls them to the Word, that they might abandon a foolish, forsaken people and come to the new covenant. I consider these women blessed who were elevated to beatitude by their vision of the Word and by the bodily death of Jesus; for everything in Christ, if seen truly, beatifies the beholder. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 141. 76

OVERVIEW: Joseph of Arimathea exposed himself to death, taking upon him the enmity of all, due to his affection for Jesus. He not only dared to ask for the body but also did not desist until he obtained it. Let us men imitate the noble spirit and courage of the women who were near to Jesus in his time of trial! Even as they had ministered to him when he was alive, now they exposed their lives to danger when he was dead. Since the sepulcher was sealed, there could be no unfair dealing. So then the proof of Jesus’ resurrection has become incontrovertible precisely by what his enemies themselves have secured (CHRYSOSTOM). The Gospel writer speaks of Joseph’s wealth not to boast but to explain how Joseph was able to obtain the body of Jesus. The tomb in which he was placed could represent the virgin womb of Mary (JEROME). Both the linen in which the body of Jesus was wrapped and the new tomb in which he was laid were preserved by the power of the body of Jesus (ORIGEN). The linen in which Christ was wrapped represents the church, which was expanded to include the Gentiles in the revelation given to Peter where clean and unclean animals are lowered before him on a linen sheet (HILARY OF POITIERS).

27:57-60 Joseph of Arimathea Buries Jesus
JOSEPH TOOK THE BODY TO HIS OWN NEW TOMB. CHRYSOSTOM: This was Joseph of Arimathea, who had been hiding his discipleship up to this time. Now, however, he had become very bold after the death of Christ. Joseph was not an obscure person. He was highly visible, a member of the council and highly distinguished. From this it becomes clear that he was a man of special courage. For he exposed himself to death, taking upon him the enmity of all by his affection for Jesus. He not only dared to ask for the body, but he did not desist until he obtained it. He did more than receive it and bury it in a splendid manner. He even laid it in his own new tomb. Joseph thereby showed both his love and his courage. This did not occur randomly or without purpose. It occurred so that there should not be any unsupported suspicion that one had risen instead of another. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.2. 1

OBTAINING THE TOMB. JEROME: Joseph of Arimathea is referred to as a rich man not because the writer of the Gospel wanted to boast that very wealthy and noble men were disciples of Jesus but rather in order to show why he was able to obtain Jesus’ body from Pilate. For the poor and obscure did not have the right to approach Pilate, the representative of Roman power, and obtain the body of the Crucified. In another Gospel, this same Joseph is called bouleutēs, which means “councilor” or “senator.” Some think that the first psalm was composed with him in view: “Blessed is the one who does not walk in the counsel of the impious,” and so on. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.57. 4

THE CLEAN LINEN SHROUD. ORIGEN: “He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb” where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ’s body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 143. 5

THE NEW TOMB. JEROME: We are able to discern from the spiritual sense of Scripture that the body of the Lord must not be covered in gold nor in jewels and silk but in pure linen. This may also mean, however, that the one who wrapped Jesus in clean linen is he who received him with a pure mind. . . . His body was placed in a new tomb lest it be imagined after the resurrection that one of the other interred bodies had arisen. The new tomb, however, may also signify Mary’s virginal womb. The great stone was placed at the entrance to the tomb in order to show that it could not be opened without the help of several persons. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.59-60. 6

THE GREAT STONE. ORIGEN: We say, therefore (lest this passage be understood crudely), that he who said “we were buried with Christ through baptism” and we have risen with him is himself buried after Christ and with Christ in the new, spiritual tomb cut from rock. Furthermore, all who are buried with Christ in baptism, so that they may also rise with him from the new tomb, belong to the “firstborn from the dead who holds primacy in all things.” Joseph did not roll many stones over the entrance to the tomb but only one “great” stone. [This stone] was greater than the power of those who lay in wait but not greater than the power of the angels who descended from heaven and removed the stone and sat on it. For all things which surround the body of Jesus are thereby clean and new and not simply “great” but surpassingly great. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 143. 14

27:61 Mary Magdalene and the Other Mary
THE NOBLE SPIRIT OF THE WOMEN. CHRYSOSTOM: For what purpose do the two Marys wait beside the sepulcher? As yet they did not fully know his greatness. They had brought ointments. They were waiting at the tomb, so that if the madness of the civil authorities should relax, they might go and care for the body. Do you see these women’s courage? See their depth of affection? See their noble spirit in providing? See their noble spirit even to death?
Let us men imitate these women! Let us not forsake Jesus in times of trial! These women exposed their lives so much for him even when he was dead, even as they had spent so much for him when he was alive. But we men, I repeat, neither feed him when hungry nor clothe him when naked. Seeing him begging, we pass him by. And yet if we might really behold him in the neighbor, we would divest ourselves of all our goods. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 88.2-3. 15

27:62-63 The Priests and the Pharisees Go to Pilate
WE REMEMBER WHAT THE IMPOSTOR SAID. CHRYSOSTOM: But note carefully the disciples’ love of truth. They do not conceal from their reader what was said by their enemies. They call Jesus an impostor. Note the contrast between the savagery of the authorities and the simple and truthful disposition of the disciples. Not even at his death did the authorities surrender their anger. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 89.1. 16

I WILL RISE AGAIN. CHRYSOSTOM: But is it worthwhile to inquire concerning that point also where he said, “After three days I rise again”? His detractors clearly understood this saying. Even if they did not grasp the metaphor of Jonah, they remembered this. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 89.1. 18

27:64-66 Securing the Tomb
THE SECURED SEPULCHER PROVES THE RESURRECTION. CHRYSOSTOM: Everywhere deceit recoils upon itself and against its will supports the truth. Observe: It was necessary to believe that he died, and that he rose again, and that he was buried and that all these things were brought to pass by his enemies. Note, at any rate, these words bearing witness to every one of these facts. “We remember that that deceiver said, when he was yet alive” (he was therefore now dead), “ ‘After three days I rise again.’ Command therefore that the sepulcher be sealed” (he was therefore buried), “lest his disciples come and steal him away.” Since the sepulcher was sealed, there was no deceitfulness at work. But if there was no sleight of hand and the sepulcher was found empty, it is clear that he has risen, plainly and incontrovertibly. Do you see how even against their will his enemies contend for the proof of the truth? For because the tomb was sealed, there was no deceitfulness. But if there was no sleight of hand and the sepulcher was found empty, it is clear that he has risen, plainly and incontrovertibly. Do you see how even against their will his enemies contend for the proof of the truth? THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 89.1. 19

MAKE IT AS SECURE AS YOU CAN. CHRYSOSTOM: What then does Pilate reply? “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.” Then what? “So they went and made the sepulcher secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.” Pilate takes every precaution to ensure the seal, so that even the soldiers could not commit fraud. His orders say, “Seal it as secure as you can, so that even you may not have it in your power to blame others.” For if the soldiers were not checked by their sealing, someone might have claimed that the soldiers themselves could have given up the body to be stolen. Although this would have been highly improbable, yet nevertheless, since they had earlier cast aside shame, so in this case they might have done so. Thus even this possibility was cut off, which might have otherwise given the disciples opportunity to feign the history concerning his resurrection. But now having themselves made it sure, they are not able to say so much as this. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 89.1. 20

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ENHANCED. JEROME: It would not have sufficed for the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees to have crucified the Lord our Savior if they had not also guarded the tomb, called in the military, sealed the entrance and, as far as they were able, resisted the resurrection. Their concern for these details serves only to advance our faith; the greater their precautionary care, the more fully is revealed the power of the resurrection. Thus he was buried in a new tomb cut from rock. If the tomb had been constructed from a mound of stones, it could have been said that his body was excavated from underneath the stones and secretly removed. That he had to be buried in a sepulcher is also shown by the prophecy which says, “He will dwell in a deep cave cut from the strongest rock,” and again, two verses further: “You will see the king in his glory.” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.27.64. 22

I WILL RAISE IT UP. ORIGEN: It is reasonable to ask the chief priests who approached Pilate the following line of questions. Tell us, for what purpose do you think Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”? Was he speaking about the death and resurrection “of his body” or about the destruction and reconstruction of the temple? If you thought that he was speaking of his resurrection, why did you testify against him because he had said, “I am able to destroy this temple and in three days to rebuild it”? If, however, you thought that he was speaking of the temple, as you have testified, then how do you know that he meant “after three days” he would be raised from the dead? See then how Christ exposes their impiety with their own words. Through their words, the chief priests condemn their own testimony, for understanding truly that Christ was speaking of his resurrection, they deliberately twisted his meaning to make it seem like he was speaking of the destruction and reconstruction of that inanimate temple. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 145. 27

THAT IMPOSTER. ORIGEN: What do you say, chief priest? Do you really think that Christ said to his men “after three days I will rise again” and then secretly commanded them to steal his body during the night and to tell everyone that he had risen from the dead after three days? Yet it is manifestly incredible that after giving such great moral instruction to all peoples and after demonstrating such great power throughout all of Judea, he would then turn and deceive his disciples. Even they would find fault with their commander and therefore refuse to do his bidding, most especially in view of the danger which would have threatened them from the people if they had confessed the man just crucified to be both their teacher and the Messiah. But if it is hardly believable for him to have said such a thing to his disciples, see if it is not more logical to believe that just as he performed great miracles and predicted that his gospel would be preached “to the ends of the earth,” that his disciples “would stand before rulers and kings” and that “Jerusalem would be destroyed by an army,” so also did he predict his resurrection when he said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Indeed, it was for that reason that the chief priests and Pharisees said to Pilate, “That imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘after three days I will rise again.’ ” COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 145. 34